Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

x
þANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 29, 2013

25, 2016

OR

¨
oTRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period fromto

Commission file number: 1-35065

TORNIER001-35065

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

The Netherlands 98-0509600

(State or other jurisdiction
of

incorporation or organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

Prins Bernhardplein 200

1097 JB Amsterdam, The Netherlands

 
None
(Zip code)
(Address of principal executive offices)Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (+31) 20 675 4002

521 4777

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Act
:

Title of each class

 

Name of each exchange on which registered

Ordinary shares, par value €0.03 per share 

NasdaqNASDAQ Global Select Market

Contingent Value RightsNASDAQ Stock Market LLC

(NASDAQ Global Select Market)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. ¨þ Yes xo No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. ¨o Yes xþ No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.     xþ Yes ¨o No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site,Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). xþ Yes ¨o No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter)229.405) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. xþ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filerþ
 ¨
Accelerated filer o
 Accelerated
Non-accelerated filero
 x
Smaller reporting company o
Non-accelerated filer ¨  (Do(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Smaller reporting company¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). ¨o Yes xþ No

The aggregate market value of the ordinary shares held bynon-affiliates of the registrant on June 30, 201326, 2016 was $481.7 million$1.7 billion based on the closing sale price of the ordinary shares on that date, as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market. For purposes of the foregoing calculation only, the registrant has assumed that all executive officers and directors of the registrant, and their affiliated entities, are affiliates.

As of February 18, 201417, 2017, there were 48,521,602103,625,395 ordinary shares outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None

None.



TORNIER

Table of Contents

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

Table of Contents

 Page
Page 
Part I
Item 1.Business5 
14
 
Item 1B.43 
Item 2.Properties43 
Item 3.43
Item 4.Mine Safety Disclosures43
Part II
Item 5.Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related StockholderShareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity SecuritiesSecurities.44
Selected Financial DataData.46
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsOperations.47
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market RiskRisk.61
Financial Statements and Supplementary DataData.63
Changes in and Disagreements Withwith Accountants on Accounting and Financial DisclosureDisclosure.
94
 
Item 9A.94 
Item 9B.Other Information94 
Item 10.Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate GovernanceGovernance.96
104
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder MattersShareholder Matters.138
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director IndependenceIndependence.140
Principal Accounting Fees and ServicesServices.
 142 
Item 15.Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules143 
Signatures144 
 EX-10.31
 EX-10.32
 EX-10.33
 EX-10.34
 EX-10.35
 EX-10.36
 EX-10.37
 EX-10.38
 EX-10.67
 EX-10.68
 EX-10.69
 EX-12.1
 EX-21.1
 EX-23.1
 EX-31.1
 EX-31.2
 EX-32.1
 EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT
 EX-101 CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT

On January 28, 2011, Tornier B.V., a private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) changed its legal form by converting to Tornier N.V., a public company with limited liability (naamloze vennootschap). This is referred to as the “conversion” in this report.

References to “Tornier,” “Company,” “we,” “our” or “us” in this report refer to Tornier B.V. and its subsidiaries prior to the conversion and to Tornier N.V. and its subsidiaries upon and after the conversion, unless the context otherwise requires.

This report contains references to among others, our trademarks Aequalis®, Aequalis Ascend®, Aequalis Ascend® Flex™, Aequalis® Fracture™, Aequalis® IM Nail™, Aequalis® Primary™, Aequalis® Reversed Fracture™, Aequalis® Reversed II™, ArthroTunneler™, BioFiber®, Cannulink™, Conexa™, Force Fiber™, Insite®, Insite® FT™, Latitude®, Latitude® EV™, MaxLock®, MaxLock® Extreme™, MiniMaxLock™, Phantom Fiber™, Piton®, PYC Humeral Head™, Salto®, Salto® Total Ankle™, Salto Talaris®, Simpliciti®, and Tornier®. All other trademarks or trade names referred to in this report are the property




Table of their respective owners.

Our fiscal year-end always falls on the Sunday nearest to December 31. References in this report to a particular year generally refer to the applicable fiscal year. Accordingly, references to “2013” or “the year ended December 29, 2013” mean the fiscal year ended December 29, 2013.

Contents


SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This reportAnnual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this reportamended (Exchange Act), and that address activities, events or developments that we expect, believe or anticipate will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements including, in particular, the statements about our plans, objectives, strategies and prospects regarding, among other things, our financial condition, operating results and business. We have identified some of these forward-looking statements with words like “believe,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “predict,” “anticipate,” “estimate” “continue” or other words and terms of similar meaning and the use of future dates. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations about future events affecting us and are subject to the safe harbor created by those sections. These statements reflect management's current knowledge, assumptions, beliefs, estimates, and expectations and express management's current view of future performance, results, and trends. Forward looking statements may be identified by their use of terms such as anticipate, believe, could, estimate, expect, intend, may, plan, predict, project, will, and other similar terms. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to materially differ from those described in the forward-looking statements. The reader should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Such statements are made as of the date of this report, and factors relatingwe undertake no obligation to our operationsupdate such statements after this date. Risks and business environment, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control anduncertainties that could cause our actual results to materially differ materially from those matters expressed ordescribed in forward-looking statements are discussed in our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (including those described in "Part I. Item 1A. Risk Factors" of this report). By way of example and without implied by our forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements (including oral representations) are only predictions or statements of current plans and can be affected by inaccurate assumptions we might make or by known or unknownlimitation, such risks and uncertainties including, among other things, risks associated with:

include:
our historyfuture actions of operating losses and negative cash flow;

our reliance on our independent sales agencies and distributors to sell our products and the effect on our business and operating results of agency and distributor changes, transitions to direct selling models in certain geographies, including most recently inSEC, the United States Canada, Australia, Japan, BelgiumAttorney’s office, the U.S. Food and Luxembourg,Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Health and Human Services, or other U.S. or foreign government authorities, including those resulting from increased scrutiny under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar laws, that could delay, limit, or suspend our development, manufacturing, commercialization, and sale of products, or result in seizures, injunctions, monetary sanctions, or criminal or civil liabilities;
risks associated with the merger between Tornier N.V. (Tornier or legacy Tornier) and Wright Medical Group, Inc. (WMG or legacy Wright), including the failure to realize intended benefits and anticipated synergies and cost-savings from the transaction or delay in realization thereof; our businesses may not be combined successfully, or such combination may take longer, be more difficult, time-consuming or costly to accomplish than expected; and business disruption after the transaction, including adverse effects on employee retention, our sales and distribution channel, especially in light of territory transitions, and business relationships with third parties;
risks associated with the divestiture of the U.S. rights to certain of legacy Tornier's ankle and silastic toe replacement products;
liability for product liability claims on hip/knee (OrthoRecon) products sold by Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (WMT) prior to the divestiture of the OrthoRecon business;
risks and uncertainties associated with the recent metal-on-metal master settlement agreement and the recentsettlement agreement with the three insurance companies, including without limitation, the final settlement amount and the final number of claims settled under the master settlement agreement, the resolution of the remaining unresolved claims, the effect of the broad release of certain insurance coverage for present and future claims, and the resolution of WMT’s dispute with the remaining carriers;
failure to realize the anticipated benefits from previous acquisitions and dispositions;
adverse outcomes in existing product liability litigation;
new product liability claims;
inadequate insurance coverage;
copycat claims against our modular hip systems resulting from a competitor’s recall of its modular hip product;
the ability of a creditor of any one particular entity within our corporate structure to reach the assets of the other entities within our corporate structure not liable for the underlying claims of the one particular entity, despite our corporate structure which is intended to ring-fence liabilities;
failure to obtain anticipated commercial sales of our AUGMENT® Bone Graft in the United States;
challenges to our intellectual property rights or inability to defend our products against the intellectual property rights of others;
adverse effects of diverting resources and attention to transition services provided to the purchaser of our U.S.Large Joints business;
failures of, interruptions to, or unauthorized tampering with, our information technology systems;
failure or delay in obtaining FDA or other regulatory approvals for our products;
the potentially negative effect of our ongoing compliance efforts on our relationships with customers and on our ability to deliver timely and effective medical education, clinical studies, and new products;
the possibility of private securities litigation or shareholder derivative suits;
insufficient demand for and market acceptance of our new and existing products;
recently enacted healthcare laws and changes in product reimbursements, which could generate downward pressure on our product pricing;
potentially burdensome tax measures;
lack of suitable business development opportunities;
inability to capitalize on business development opportunities;

product quality or patient safety issues;
geographic and product mix impact on our sales;
inability to retain key sales channel towards focusing separatelyrepresentatives, independent distributors, and other personnel or to attract new talent;
inventory reductions or fluctuations in buying patterns by wholesalers or distributors;
inability to generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy our capital requirements, including future milestone payments, and existing debt, including the conversion features of our convertible senior notes, or refinance our existing debt as it matures;
risks associated with our credit, security and guaranty agreement for our senior secured asset based line of credit;
inability to raise additional financing when needed and on upper and lower extremity products, and favorable terms;
the adversenegative impact of such changesthe commercial and transitionscredit environment on us, our revenuecustomers, and other operating results;

continuing weakness in the global economy, which has been and may continue to be exacerbated by austerity measures taken by several countries, and automatic and discretionary governmental spending cuts, which could reduce the availability or affordability of private insurance or Medicare or other governmental reimbursement or may affect patient decision to undergo elective procedures, and could otherwise adversely affect our business and operating results;suppliers;

our reliance on sales of our upper extremity joints and trauma products, including in particular our shoulder products, which generate a significant portion of our revenue, and the third quarter of 2013 launch of our Aequalis Ascend Flex;

deriving a significant portion of our revenues from operations in certain geographic markets that are subject to political, economic, and social instability, including in particular France, and risks and uncertainties involved in launching our products in certain new geographic markets, including in particular Japan, China and Brazil;markets;

fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates;

disruption and turmoil in global credit and financial markets, which may be exacerbated by the inability of certain countries to continue to service their sovereign debt obligations;

not successfully developing and marketing new products and technologies and implementing our business strategy;

not successfully competing against our existing or potential competitors and the effect of significant recent consolidations amongst our competitors;

our October 2012 acquisition of OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc., and risks related thereto, including our inability to integrate successfully our commercial organizations, including in particular our distribution and sales representative arrangements, and our failure to realize the anticipated benefits and synergies to our business and operating results;

the reliance of our business plan on certain market assumptions;

our private label manufacturers failing to provide us with sufficient supply of their products, or failing to meet appropriate quality requirements;

our inability to timely manufacture products or instrument sets to meet demand;
our plans to bring the manufacturing of certain of our products in-house and possible disruptions we may experience in connection with such transition;

our plans to increase our gross margins by taking certain actions designed to do so;

the loss of key suppliers, which may result in our inability to meet customer orders for our products in a timely manner or within our budget;

our patents and other intellectual property rights not adequately protecting our products or alleged claims of patent infringement by us, which may result in our loss of market share to our competitors and increased expenses;

the incurrence of significant expenditures of resources to maintain relatively high levels of inventory, which could reduce our cash flows and increase the risk of inventory obsolescence, which could harm our operating results;

our credit agreement, senior secured term loan and revolving credit facility and risks related thereto;

our inability to access our revolving credit facility or raise capital when needed, which could force us to delay, reduce, eliminate or abandon our commercialization efforts or product development programs;

restrictive affirmative financial and other covenants in our credit agreement that may limit our operating flexibility;

consolidation in the healthcare industry that could lead to demands for price concessions or the exclusion of some suppliers from certain of our markets, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or operating results;

our clinical trials and their results and our reliance on third parties to conduct them;

regulatory clearances or approvals and the extensive regulatory requirements to which we are subject;

the compliance of our products and activities with the laws and regulations of the countries in which they are marketed, which compliance may be costly and time-consuming;

the use, misuse or off-label use of our products that may harm our image in the marketplace or result in injuries that may lead to product liability suits, which could be costly to our business or result in governmental sanctions;

healthcare reform legislation, including the excise tax on U.S. sales of certain medical devices,pending and its implementation, possible additional legislation, regulation andfuture other governmental pressure in the United States and globally, which may affect utilization, pricing, reimbursement, taxation and rebate policies of governmental agencies and private payors,litigation, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or operating results; and

pending and future litigation, which couldrisks in light of the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting that we have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.recently identified.

For more information regarding these and other uncertainties and factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from what we have anticipated in our forward-looking statements or otherwise could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, or operating results, see “Part I —Part I. Item 1A. Risk Factors.Factors of this report. The risks and uncertainties described above and in the “Part I —Part I. Item 1A. Risk Factors” sectionFactors of this report are not exclusive and further information concerning us and our business, including factors that potentially could materially affect our financial results or condition, may emerge from time to time. We assume no obligation to update, amend, or clarify forward-looking statements to reflect actual results or changes in factors or assumptions affecting such forward-looking statements. We advise you, however, to consult any further disclosures we make on related subjects in our future annual reportsAnnual Reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reportsQuarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and current reportsCurrent Reports on Form 8-K we file with or furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

SEC.



PART I

ITEM

Item 1. BUSINESS

Business.

Overview

We are

Wright Medical Group N.V. (Wright or we) is a global medical device company focused on providingextremities and biologics products. We are committed to delivering innovative, value-added solutions to surgeons that treat musculoskeletal injuriesimproving quality of life for patients worldwide and disordersare a recognized leader of surgical solutions for the upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand), lower extremities (foot and ankle) and biologics markets, three of the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, ankle and foot, which we refer to as “extremity joints.”fastest growing segments in orthopaedics. We sell to these surgeons a broad line of joint replacement, trauma, sports medicine and biologicmarket our products to treat extremity joints. In certain international markets, we also offer joint replacement products for the hip and knee.

We have had a tradition of innovation, intense focus on science and education and a commitment to the advancement of orthopaedics in the pursuit of improved clinical outcomes for patients since our founding over 70 years ago in France by René Tornier. Our history includes the introduction of the porous orthopaedic hip implant, the application of the Morse taper, which is a reliable means of joining modular orthopaedic implants, and more recently, the introduction of the stemless shoulder both in Europe and in a U.S. clinical trial. This track record of innovation based on science and education stems from our close collaboration with leading orthopaedic surgeons and thought leaders throughout the world.

50 countries worldwide. We believe we are differentiated in the marketplace by our strategic focus on extremities and biologics, our full portfolio of upper and lower extremityextremities and biologics products, and our extremity-focusedspecialized and focused sales organization. We offer a broad

Our product portfolio consists of over 95the following product categories:
Upper extremities, which include joint implants and bone fixation devices for the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand;
Lower extremities, which include joint implants and bone fixation devices for the foot and ankle;
Biologics, which include products thatused to support treatment of damaged or diseased bone, tendons, and soft tissues or to stimulate bone growth; and
Sports medicine and other, which include products used across several anatomic sites to mechanically repair tissue-to-tissue or tissue-to-bone injuries and other ancillary products.
Our global corporate headquarters are designedlocated in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We also have significant operations located in Memphis, Tennessee (U.S. headquarters, research and development, sales and marketing administration, and administrative activities); Bloomington, Minnesota (upper extremities sales and marketing and warehousing operations); Arlington, Tennessee (manufacturing and warehousing operations); Franklin, Tennessee (manufacturing and warehousing operations); Montbonnot, France (manufacturing and warehousing operations); and Macroom, Ireland (manufacturing). In addition, we have local sales and distribution offices in Canada, Australia, Asia, Latin America, and throughout Europe. For purposes of this report, references to provide solutions"international" or "foreign" relate to non-U.S. matters while references to "domestic" relate to U.S. matters.
On October 1, 2015, we became Wright Medical Group N.V. following the merger (the Wright/Tornier merger or the merger) of Wright Medical Group, Inc. (WMG or legacy Wright) with Tornier N.V. (Tornier or legacy Tornier). Because of the structure of the merger and the governance of the combined company immediately post-merger, the merger was accounted for as a "reverse acquisition" under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (US GAAP), and as such, legacy Wright was considered the acquiring entity for accounting purposes. Therefore, legacy Wright’s historical results of operations replaced legacy Tornier’s historical results of operations for all periods prior to the merger. References in this section and certain other sections of Part I of this report to "we," "our" and "us" refer to Wright Medical Group N.V. and its subsidiaries after the Wright/Tornier merger and Wright Medical Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries before the merger.
On October 21, 2016, we sold legacy Tornier’s Large Joints business to Corin Orthopaedics Holdings Limited (Corin) allowing us to devote our full resources and attention on accelerating growth opportunities in the high-growth extremities and biologics markets. Legacy Wright sold its hip and knee (OrthoRecon) business to MicroPort Scientific Corporation (MicroPort) on January 9, 2014. The financial results of legacy Tornier’s Large Joints business and the OrthoRecon business are reflected within discontinued operations for all periods presented.
For the year ended December 25, 2016, we had net sales of $690.4 million and a net loss from continuing operations of $164.9 million. As of December 25, 2016, we had total assets of $2,291 million. During the first quarter of 2016, our management began managing our operations as four operating business segments: U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics, U.S. Upper Extremities, International Extremities & Biologics, and Large Joints, based on management's change to the way it monitors performance, aligns strategies, and allocates resources. As a result of the sale of our Large Joints business to Corin, the Large Joints reportable segment is presented in our consolidated statements of operations as discontinued operations and is not included in segment results for all periods presented. U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics, U.S. Upper Extremities, and International Extremities & Biologics are our remaining three reportable segments as of December 25, 2016. Detailed information on our net sales by product category and operating business segment and our net sales and long-lived assets by segment and geographic region can be found in Note 20 to our surgeon customersconsolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
Orthopaedic Industry
The total worldwide orthopaedic industry is estimated at approximately $47.3 billion in 2016. Five multinational companies currently dominate the orthopaedic industry, each with approximately $2 billion or more in annual sales. The size of these companies often allows them to concentrate their marketing and research and development efforts on products they believe will have a relatively high minimum threshold level of sales. As a result, there is an opportunity for a mid-sized orthopaedic company, such as us, to focus on less contested, higher-growth sectors of the goal of improving clinical outcomes for their patients.orthopaedic market.

We have focused our efforts into growing our position in the high-growth extremities and biologics markets. We believe a more active and aging patient population with higher expectations regarding “quality of life,” an increasing global awareness of extremities and biologics solutions, improved clinical outcomes as a result of the use of extremitiessuch products, and technological advances resulting in specific designs for extremitiessuch products that simplify procedures and address unmet needs for early interventions, and the growing need for revisions and revision related solutions will drive the market for extremities and biologics products.

Our global corporate headquarters are located in Amsterdam,

The extremities market is one of the Netherlands. We also have significant operations located in Bloomington, Minnesota (U.S. headquarters, sales, marketing and distribution and administration), Grenoble, France (OUS headquarters, manufacturing and research and development), Macroom, Ireland (manufacturing), Warsaw, Indiana (research and development) and Medina, Ohio (marketing, research and development). In addition, we conduct local sales and distribution activities across 13 sales offices throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and Canada.

Customers, Sales and Distribution

Our target customers are surgeon specialists focused on extremity injuries and disorders, alongfastest growing market segments within orthopaedics, with general surgeons and podiatrists that perform extremities-related surgical procedures. We provide these surgeons extensive “hands on” orthopaedic training and education, including fellowships and masters courses that are not easily accessible through traditional medical training programs.annual growth rates of 7-10%. We believe that our history of innovation and focus on quality and improving clinical outcomes, along with our training programs, allow usthe extremities market will continue to reachgrow by approximately 7-10% annually. We currently estimate the market for all surgical products used by extremities-focused surgeons early in their careers and provide on-going value, which includes experiencing the clinical benefits of our products.

While we market our broad portfolio of products to these surgeons, our revenue is generated from sales of our products to healthcare institutions and stocking distributors. We have built and developed local sales organizations to serve these customer groups across the markets in which we operate. Our sales organizations are structured based on the requirements of the local markets in which they serve and consist of sales associates, sales management and support personnel that are either employed by us or provided under contract by an independent distributor or sales agency. Our direct sales employees and independent sales agencies earn commissions based on the revenue they generate from sales of our products.

United States

In the United States, we market and sell a broad offering of products, including products for upper extremity joints and trauma, lower extremity joints and trauma, and sports medicine and biologics. We do not actively market products for the hip or knee, which we refer to as “large joints,”be approximately $3 billion in the United States, although we have clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, to sell certain large joint products. Our distribution systemStates. We believe major trends in the United States currently consists of approximately 145 direct sales representativesextremities market include procedure-specific and approximately 40 independent sales agencies that sell our products.

We areanatomy-specific devices, locking plates, and an increase in total ankle replacement or arthroplasty procedures.

Upper extremities reconstruction involves implanting devices to replace, reconstruct, or fixate injured or diseased joints and bones in the process of completing our strategic initiative to transition our U.S. sales organization from a network of independent sales agenciesshoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand. It is estimated that sold our full product portfolio to a combination of direct sales teams and independent sales agencies that are individually focused on selling either upper extremity products or lower extremity products across the territories that they serve. To create these separate upper and lower extremity sales channels, in 2013, we terminated relationships with certain independent sales agencies and transitioned these territories to new agencies or established direct

sales representation; acquired sales agencies and established direct sales representation; or transitioned an upper or lower extremity product portfolio between agencies or from an agency to a new direct sales team. These transitions caused disruption in our U.S. business and revenue in 2013. As we move into 2014, we expect to continue and complete the transition of our sales representatives to focus on either upper or lower extremities products, optimize our territory structures, hire additional sales representatives to fill territories and educate and train our sales teams and, as a result, we expect to continue to experience disruption in our U.S. business and revenue in 2014. Currently, approximately 60% of our direct sales representatives and 80% of our distributors are identified and transitioned,the upper extremities market is in total shoulder replacement or arthroplasty implants. We believe major trends in the process of transitioning, to either dedicated upper or lower extremities products. Our goal for 2014 is to become 85% dedicated to either upper extremities or lower extremities products by the endmarket include next-generation joint arthroplasty systems, bone preserving solutions, virtual planning systems, and revision of 2014. The goal is 85% since not all of our territories warrant two separate sales representatives. In terms of training, our goal is to train an average of 50 sales representatives per quarter during 2014 for a total of 200 representatives by the end of 2014. We believe this will be an important milestone because we believe it will be an indication that our sales representatives have the requisite pathology, procedural and product knowledge and skills to communicate the key aspects of their product lines and to support and guide surgeons during cases. While this transition has caused and is expected to continue to cause disruption in our U.S. business, we ultimately believe that this strategy will position us to leverage our sales force and broad product portfolio toward our goal of achieving above market extremities revenue growth and margin expansion over the long term by allowing us to increase the product proficiency of our sales representatives to better serve our surgeon customers and to increase and optimize our selling opportunities by improving our overall procedure coverage and providing access to new specialists, general surgeons and accounts.

International

Internationally, we sell our full product portfolio, including upper and lower extremity products, sports medicine and biologics products and large joints products. We utilize several distribution approaches that are tailored to the needs and requirements of each individual market. Our international sales and distribution system currently consists of 13 direct sales offices and approximately 25 distributors that sell our products in approximately 45 countries. We utilize direct sales organizations in certain mature European markets, Australia, Japan and Canada. In France, our largest international market, we have an upper extremity direct sales force and a separate direct sales force that sells a combination of hip, knee and lower extremity products. In addition, we may also utilize independent stocking distributors in these direct sales areas to further broaden our distribution channel. In certain other geographies, including emerging markets, we utilize independent stocking distributors to market and sell our full product portfolio or select portions of our product portfolio.

As part of our efforts to grow internationally, over the last few years we have expanded our distribution and sales efforts into Mexico, Israel, Argentina, Singapore and Vietnam through partnerships with local stocking distributors. In addition, we have selectively transitioned from distributor representation to direct sales representation in certain countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Japan and Canada during the past few years. We plan to continue this strategy of international expansion, in combination with the tailoring of our international distribution approach to the needs and requirements of each individual market. This strategy may result in additional sales coverage transitions in the future.

We generated $182.1 million, or 59% of our total revenue, in the United States during the year ended December 29, 2013, compared to $156.8 million and $141.5 million during the years ended December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively. We generated $128.9 million, or 41% of our total revenue, in international markets outside of the United States during the year ended December 29, 2013, compared to $120.8 million and $119.7 million during the years ended December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively. Our total revenue in France was $58.2 million in 2013, $52.7 million in 2012 and $55.4 million in 2011. Our total revenue in the Netherlands was $5.8 million in 2013, $5.3 million in 2012 and $5.0 million in 2011.

Product Portfolio

We manage our business in one reportable segment that includes the design, manufacture, marketing and sales of orthopaedic products. We offer a broad product portfolio of over 95 extremities products that are designed to provide solutions to our surgeon customers with the goal of improving clinical outcomes for their patients. Our product portfolio consists of the following product categories:

Product category

Target addressable geography

Upper extremity joints and traumaUnited States and International
Lower extremity joints and traumaUnited States and International
Sports medicine and biologicsUnited States and International
Large joints and otherSelected International Markets

Although the industry traditionally organizes the orthopaedic market based on the mechanical features of the products, we organize our product categories in a way that aligns with the types of surgeons who most frequently use them. Therefore, we distinguish upper extremity joints and trauma from lower extremity joints and trauma, as opposed to viewing joint implants and trauma products as distinct product categories. Descriptions of our product categories are detailed below.

See the Fiscal Year Comparisons contained in “Part II – Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” section of this report for a three-year revenue history by product category.

Upper Extremity Joints and Trauma

The upper extremity joints and trauma product category includes joint implants and bone fixation devices for the shoulder, hand, wrist and elbow. Our global revenue from this category for the year ended December 29, 2013 was $184.5 million, or 59% of total revenue, which represents growth of 5% over the prior year.

We expect the shoulder to continue to be the largest and most important product category for us for the foreseeable future. Our shoulder joint implants are used to treat painful shoulder conditions due to arthritis, irreparable rotator cuff tendon tears, bone disease, fractured humeral heads or failed previous shoulder replacement surgery. Our shoulder products include the following:

replacements in older patients.
Our total joint replacement products have two components—a humeral implant consisting of a metal stemLower extremities reconstruction involves implanting devices to replace, reconstruct, or base attached to a metal head, and a plastic implant for the glenoid (shoulder socket). Together, these two components mimic the function of a natural shoulder joint. Our products in this area include the Aequalis Ascend, Aequalis Primary, Aequalis PerFORM and Simpliciti shoulder systems. The Simpliciti stemless shoulder is currently available in certain international markets and is in a clinical trial in the United States.

Our hemi joint replacement products replace only the humeral head and allow it to articulate against the native glenoid. These products include our PYC Humeral Head and Inspyre. PYC stands for pyrocarbon, which is a biocompatible material and is currently available in certain international markets.

Our reversed implants, which include the Aequalis Reversed II shoulder, are used in arthritic patients lacking rotator cuff function. The components are different from a traditional “total” shoulder in that the humeral implant has the plastic socket and the glenoid has the metal head. This design has the biomechanical impact of shifting the pivot point of the joint away from the body centerline and recruiting the deltoid muscles to enable the patient to elevate the arm.

Our convertible implants are modular implants that can be converted from a totalfixate injured or hemi joint replacement to a reversed implant at a later date if the patient requires it. In the third quarter of 2013, we launched our Aequalis Ascend Flex convertible shoulder system, which provides anatomic and reversed options within a single system and offers precise intra-operative implant-to-patient fit and easy conversion to reversed if necessary.

Our resurfacing implants, which include the Aequalis Resurfacing Head, are designed to preserve bone, which may benefit more active or younger patients with shoulder arthritis.

Trauma devices, such as plates, screws and nails, are non-articulating implants used to help stabilize fractures of the humerus. Our upper extremity trauma products include the Aequalis IM Nail, Aequalis Proximal Humeral Plate, Aequalis Fracture shoulder and Aequalis Reversed Fracture shoulder.

We also offer joint replacement and trauma products including implants, pins, plates and screws that are used to treat the hand, wrist and elbow. One of our distinctive product offerings for these smaller, non-load bearing joints are implants made from pyrocarbon, which has low joint surface friction and a high resistance to wear. We offer a wide range of pyrocarbon implants internationally and have begun to introduce some of these products into the United States. In 2013, we also launched our Latitude EV total elbow prosthesis. The Latitude EV gives surgeons the ability to reproduce the natural flexion/extension axis and restore natural kinematics of the elbow with its anatomic design.

Lower Extremity Joints and Trauma

The lower extremitydiseased joints and trauma category includes joint implants and bone fixation devices forbones in the foot and ankle. Our global revenue fromA large segment of the lower extremityextremities market is comprised of plating and screw systems for reconstructing and fusing joints and trauma for the year ended December 29, 2013 was $58.7 million, or 19% of total revenue, which represents growth of 72% over the prior year. This growth was primarily related to our acquisition of OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc. (OrthoHelix)repairing bones after traumatic injury. We believe major trends in the fourth quarter of 2012. In 2013, we received the required regulatory approvals to introduce the OrthoHelix product portfolio into certain international markets, including France and Germany, which resulted in the first international sales of these products in the second quarter of 2013. We have since received required regulatory approvals to introduce our OrthoHelix products in the United Kingdom.

Our lower extremity productsextremities market include the following:

Our joint implants include replacement products for theuse of external fixation devices in diabetic patients, total ankle that involve replacing the joint with an articulating multi-component implant. These joint implants may be mobile bearing,arthroplasty, advanced tissue fixation devices, and biologics. According to various customer and market surveys, we are a market leader in which the plastic component is free to slide relative to the metal bearing surfaces, or fixed bearing, in which this component is constrained. We offer mobile bearing implants outside the United States, including the Salto Total Ankle prosthesis, and precision bearing implants globally, including the Salto Talaris Total Ankle mobile version.

Our bone fixation products, including the OrthoHelix product portfolio, include a broad range of anatomically designed plates, screws and nails. These products are used to stabilize and heal fractured bones, joint dislocation, correct deformities and fuse arthritic joints of the foot and ankle surgical products. New technologies have been introduced into the lower extremities market in recent years, including next-generation total ankle replacement systems. Many of these technologies currently have low levels of market penetration. We believe that result from either acute injuries or chronic wear and tear. These devices are also utilized in the treatmentmarket adoption of a wide range of non-traumatic surgical procedures. These products include the MaxLock, MiniMaxLock, and MaxLock Extreme plate and screw systems and the Cannulink Intraosseous Fixation System (IFS) for hammertoe correction.

Sports Medicine and Biologics

The sports medicine product category includes products used across several anatomic sites to mechanically repair tissue-to-tissue or tissue-to-bone injuries. Rotator cuff repair is the largest sub-segment in the sports medicine market. Other procedures relevant to extremities include shoulder instability treatment, Achilles tendon repair and soft tissue reconstructiontotal ankle replacement, which currently represents approximately 8% of the U.S. foot and ankle and several other soft tissue repair procedures. Our sports medicine products includedevice market, will result in significant future growth in the Insite FT and Piton anchor products, ArthroTunneler arthroscopic tunneling device and Force Fiber suture products.

lower extremities market.

The field of biologics employs tissue engineering and regenerative medicine technologies focused on remodeling and regeneration of tendons, ligaments, bone, and cartilage. Biologic products use both biological tissue-based and synthetic materials to allow the body to regenerate damaged or diseased bone and to repair damaged or diseased soft tissue. These products aid the body’s natural regenerative capabilities to heal itself. Biologic products provide a lower morbidity solution to “autografting,” a procedure that involves harvesting a patient’s own bone or soft tissue and transplanting it to a different site. Following an autografting procedure, the patient typically has pain, and at times, complications result at the harvest site after surgery. Biologically or synthetically derived soft tissue grafts and scaffolds are used to treat soft tissue injuresinjuries and are complementary to many sports medicine applications, including rotator cuff tendon repair and Achilles tendon repair. Hard tissue biologics products are used in many bone fusion or trauma cases where healing potential may be compromised and additional biologic factors are desired to enhance healing, where the surgeon needs additional bone, or in cases where the surgeon wishes to use materials that are naturally incorporated by the body over time. We estimate that the worldwide orthobiologics market to be over $3.5 billion, and with annual growth rates of 3-5%. Three multinational companies currently dominate the orthobiologics industry.
The newest addition to our biologics product portfolio is AUGMENT® Bone Graft, which is based on recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (rhPDGF-BB), a synthetic copy of one of the body’s principal healing agents. We obtained FDA approval of AUGMENT® Bone Graft in the United States for ankle and/or hindfoot fusion indications during the third quarter of 2015. We estimate the U.S. market opportunity for AUGMENT® Bone Graft for ankle and/or hindfoot fusion indications to be approximately $300 million. The main competitors for AUGMENT® Bone Graft are autologous bone grafts, allograft, and synthetic bone growth substitutes. Autologous bone grafts, which account for a significant portion of total graft volume, are taken directly from the patient. This generally necessitates an additional procedure to obtain the graft, which in turn creates added expense, and increased pain and recovery time. Allografts, which are currently the second most commonly used bone grafts, are taken from human cadavers and processed by either bone banks or commercial firms. Although an obvious advantage to allografts is the fact that a second-site harvesting operation is not required, they carry a slight risk of transmitting pathogens and can also cause immune system reactions. Synthetic grafts are derived from numerous materials, including polymers, calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, bovine collagen, and coral.
Product Portfolio
We offer a broad product portfolio of approximately 180 extremities products and over 20 biologics products that are designed to provide solutions to our surgeon customers, with the goal of improving clinical outcomes and the “quality of life” for their patients. Our product portfolio consists of the following product categories:
Upper extremities, which include joint implants and bone fixation devices for the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand;
Lower extremities, which include joint implants and bone fixation devices for the foot and ankle;

Biologics, which include products used to support treatment of damaged or diseased bone, tendons, and soft tissues or to stimulate bone growth; and
Sports medicine and other, which include products used across several anatomic sites to mechanically repair tissue-to-tissue or tissue-to-bone injuries and other ancillary products.
Upper Extremities
The upper extremities product category includes joint implants and bone fixation devices for the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand. Our global net sales from this product category was $288.1 million, or 41.7% of total net sales, for the year ended December 25, 2016, as compared to $83.5 million, or 20.6% of total net sales, for the year ended December 27, 2015. Our net sales in upper extremities increased significantly as a result of the Wright/Tornier merger.
Our shoulder products are used to treat painful shoulder conditions due to arthritis, irreparable rotator cuff tendon tears, bone disease, fractured humeral heads, or failed previous shoulder replacement surgery. Our shoulder products include the following:
Total Shoulder Joint Replacement. Our total shoulder joint replacement products have two components-a humeral implant consisting of a metal stem or base attached to a metal head, and a plastic implant for the glenoid (shoulder socket). Together, these two components mimic the function of a natural shoulder joint. Our total shoulder joint replacement products include the AEQUALIS ASCEND®, AEQUALIS® PRIMARY™, AEQUALIS® PERFORM™ and SIMPLICITI® shoulder systems. Our recently introduced BLUEPRINT™ 3D Planning Software can be used with our AEQUALIS® PERFORM™ Glenoid System to assist surgeons in accurately positioning the glenoid implant and replicating the pre-operative surgical plan. In addition, we received FDA 510(k) clearance in June 2016 of our AEQUALIS® PERFORM™+ Glenoid System, the first anatomic augmented glenoid. This system was designed to specifically address posterior glenoid deficiencies and deliver bone preservation.
Hemi Shoulder Joint Replacement. Our hemi shoulder joint replacement products replace only the humeral head and allow it to articulate against the native glenoid. These products include our PYC HUMERAL HEAD™ and INSPYRE™. PYC stands for pyrocarbon, which is a biocompatible material that has low joint surface friction and a high resistance to wear. The PYC HUMERAL HEAD™ is currently available in certain international markets. The product received FDA approval in 2015 for its investigational device exemption to conduct a clinical trial in the United States. We anticipate that this single arm study will enroll and implant 157 patients from up to 20 centers across the United States and will evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the device in patients with a primary diagnosis of partial shoulder replacement or hemi-arthroplasty. The study design uses a primary endpoint that is measured at two years.
Reversed Shoulder Joint Replacement. Our reversed shoulder joint replacement products are used in arthritic patients lacking rotator cuff function. The components are different from a traditional “total” shoulder in that the humeral implant has the plastic socket and the glenoid has the metal head. This design has the biomechanical impact of shifting the pivot point of the joint away from the body centerline and recruiting the deltoid muscles to enable the patient to elevate the arm. Our reversed joint replacement products include the AEQUALIS® REVERSED II™ shoulder. We received FDA 510(k) clearance in December 2016 of our AEQUALIS® PERFORM™ REVERSED Glenoid System, our first reverse augmented glenoid. This system was designed to specifically address posterior glenoid deficiencies and deliver bone preservation.
Convertible Shoulder Joint Replacement. Our convertible shoulder joint replacement products are modular implants that can be converted from a total or hemi shoulder implant to a reversed implant at a later date if the patient requires it. Our convertible joint replacement products include the AEQUALIS ASCEND® FLEX™ convertible shoulder system, which provides anatomic and reversed options within a single system and is designed to offer precise intra-operative implant-to-patient fit and easy conversion to reversed if necessary.
Shoulder Resurfacing Implants. An option for some patients is shoulder resurfacing where the damaged humeral head is sculpted to receive a metal “cap” that fits onto the bone, functioning as a new, smooth humeral head. This procedure can be less invasive than a total shoulder replacement. Our shoulder resurfacing implants are designed to preserve bone, which may benefit more active or younger patients with shoulder arthritis. Our resurfacing implants include the AEQUALIS® RESURFACING HEAD™.
Shoulder Trauma Devices. Our shoulder trauma devices, such as plates, pins, screws, and nails, are non-articulating implants used to help stabilize fractures of the humerus. Our shoulder trauma products include the AEQUALIS® IM NAIL™, AEQUALIS® PROXMILA HUMERAL PLATE™, AEQUALIS® FRACTURE™ shoulder and AEQUALIS® REVERSED FRACTURE™ shoulder.
In addition to our shoulder products, our upper extremities product portfolio consist of implants, plates, pins, screws, and nails that are used to treat the elbow, wrist, and hand, and include the following:

Total Elbow and Radial Head Replacement. Our total elbow and radial head replacement products address the need for modularity in the anatomically highly-variable joint of the elbow and give surgeons the ability to reproduce the natural flexion/extension axis and restore natural kinematics of the elbow. Our total elbow replacement products include our LATITUDE® EV™ total elbow prosthesis. Our radial head replacement products include our EVOLVE® modular radial head device, which is a market leading radial head prosthesis that provides different combinations of heads and stems allowing the surgeon to choose implant heads and stems to accommodate the unpredictable anatomy of each patient.
Elbow Fracture Repair. We have several plating and screw products designed to repair a fractured elbow. Our radial head plating systems and screws are for surgeons who wish to repair rather than replace a damaged radial head and include our EVOLVE® TRIAD™ fixation system. Our EVOLVE® Elbow Plating System addresses fractures of the distal humerus and proximal ulna. Composed of polished stainless steel, this system was designed to accurately match the patient anatomy to reduce the need for intra-operative bending while providing a low profile design to minimize post-operative irritation. Both of these products and several of our other products incorporate our ORTHOLOC® 3Di Polyaxial Locking Technology to enable optimal screw placement and stability.
Wrist Fracture Repair. We have several plating and screw products designed to repair a fractured wrist. Our MICRONAIL® II Intramedullary Distal Radius System is a next-generation minimally invasive treatment for distal radius fractures that is designed to provide immediate fracture stabilization with minimal soft tissue disruption. Also, as the nail is implanted within the bone, it has no external profile on top of the bone, thereby reducing the potential for tendon irritation or rupture, which is an appreciable problem with conventional plates designed to lie on top of the bone. In addition, our RAYHACK® system is comprised of a series of precision cutting guides and procedure-specific plates for ulnar and radial shortening procedures and the surgical treatment of radial malunions and Keinbock’s Disease.
Hand Fixation. Our hand fixation products include our FUSEFORCE® Hand Fixation System, which is a shape-memory compression-ready fixation system that can be used in fixation for fractures, fusions, or osteotomies of the bones in the hand.
Thumb and Finger Joint Replacement. Our Swanson finger joints are used in finger joint replacement for patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. With nearly 45 years of clinical success, Swanson digit implants are a foundation in our upper extremities business and are used by a loyal base of hand surgeons worldwide. Our ORTHOSPHERE® implants are used in thumb joint replacement procedures.
Lower Extremities
The lower extremities product category includes joint implants and bone fusion and fixation devices, including plates, pins, screws, and nails, for the foot and ankle. Our global net sales from this product category for the year ended December 25, 2016 was $285.6 million, or 41.4% of total net sales, as compared to $238.3 million, or 58.8% of total net sales, for the year ended December 27, 2015.
We are a recognized leader in the United States for foot and ankle surgical products. Our lower extremities product portfolio includes:
Total Ankle Joint Replacement. Total ankle joint replacement, also known as total ankle arthroplasty, is a surgical procedure that orthopaedic surgeons use to treat ankle arthritis. Our total ankle joint replacement products include implants for the ankle that involve replacing the joint with an articulating multi-component implant. These joint implants may be mobile bearing, in which the plastic component is free to slide relative to the metal bearing surfaces, or fixed bearing, in which this component is constrained. Our INBONE® Total Ankle Systems, including our third-generation INBONE® II Total Ankle System, are modular prostheses that allow the surgeon to tailor the fixation stems for the tibial and talar components in order to maximize stability of the implant. The INBONE® II Total Ankle System is the only ankle replacement that offers surgeons multiple implant options with different articular geometry. Our INFINITY® Total Ankle System is the newest addition to our total ankle replacement portfolio and features a distinctive talar resurfacing option for preservation of talar bone. The combination and interchangeability of both the INBONE® and INFINITY® systems provide the surgeon with an implant continuum of care concept, allowing the surgeon to address a more bone conserving implant option with INFINITY® all the way to addressing a more complex ankle deformity with INBONE®. Our INBONE® and INFINITY® Total Ankle Systems can be used with our PROPHECY® Preoperative Navigation Guides, which combine computer imaging with a patient’s CT scan, and are designed to provide alignment accuracy while reducing surgical steps. Physician testing of our most recent total ankle replacement product, the INVISIONTM Total Ankle Revision System, began in 2016 and is expected to reach full commercial launch in the third quarter of 2017.

Ankle Fusion. We have several products used in ankle fusion procedures, which fuse together the tibia, fibula, and talus bones into one bone, and are intended to treat painful, end-stage arthritis in the ankle joint. These products include our ORTHOLOC® 3Di Ankle Fusion System, which legacy Wright launched successfully in July 2013, VALOR® TTC fusion nail, and the legacy Tornier Maxlock ExtremeTM Plate and Screws System.
Ankle Fixation and Fracture Repair. We sell a broad range of anatomically designed plates, screws, and nails used to stabilize and heal fractured ankle bones, including our ORTHOLOC® 3Di Ankle Fracture System, which is a comprehensive single-tray ankle fracture solution designed to address a wide range of fracture types by providing the surgeon with multiple anatomically-contoured plates and a comprehensive set of instrumentation.
Foot Fusion. We have several products used in foot fusion procedures, which fuse together three bones in the back of the foot into one bone and are used to treat a wide range of conditions, including arthritis, flat feet, rheumatoid arthritis, and previous injuries, such as fractures caused by wear and tear to bones and cartilage. Our foot fusion products include our ORTHOLOC® 3Di Midfoot Plating System, VALOR® TTC fusion nail and the legacy Tornier Maxlock ExtremeTM Plate and Screws System.
Foot Fixation and Fracture Repair. Our foot fixation and fracture repair products include plates, screws, and nails used to stabilize and heal foot deformities and fractures. Our CHARLOTTE® CLAW® Compression Plate is the first ever locking compression plate designed for corrective foot surgeries. Our next-generation CLAW® II Compression Plating System expands our plate and screw offering by introducing anatomic plates specifically designed for fusions of the midfoot, and the CLAW® II Polyaxial Compression Plating System incorporates variable-angle locking screw technology and our ORTHOLOC® 3Di Reconstruction Plating System utilizes our 3Di polyaxial locking technology. In April 2016, we further expanded the ORTHOLOC® 3Di portfolio with the launch of the ORTHOLOC® 3Di CROSSCHECK® Plating System. This modular addition is comprised of five uniquely designed plates which offer an inter-fragmentary solution. Our SALVATION™ limb salvage portfolio, which is designed to address the unique demands of advanced midfoot reconstruction, was also commercially launched in the first half of 2016. Other foot products include the MAXLOCK®, MINIMAX LOCK™ and MINIMAX LOCK EXTREME™ plate and screw systems, BIOFOAM® Wedge System, BIOARCH® Subtalar Arthroereisis Implant, MDI Metatarsal Resurfacing Implant, and TENFUSE® Nail Allograft.
Hammertoe Correction. Hammertoe is a contracture (bending) of one or both joints of the second, third, fourth, or fifth (little) toes. Our hammertoe correction products include the PRO-TOE® VO Hammertoe Fixation System, PRO-TOE® C2 Hammertoe Implant, PHALINX® Hammertoe Fixation System, Cannulink Intraosseous Fixation System (IFS), and TENFUSE® PIP Hammertoe Allograft.
Toe Joint Replacement. We also sell our Swanson line of toe joint replacement products.
Biologics
The biologics product category includes a broad line of biologic products that are used to support treatment of damaged or diseased bone, tendons, and soft tissues and other biological solutions for surgeons and their patients or to stimulate bone growth. These products focus on supporting biological musculoskeletal repair by utilizing synthetic and human tissue-based materials. Our biologic products are primarily used in extremities-related procedures as well as in trauma-induced voids of the long bones and some spine procedures. Internationally, we offer a bone graft product incorporating antibiotic delivery. Our global net sales from this product category for the year ended December 25, 2016 was $93.5 million, or 13.5% of total net sales, compared to $70.2 million, or 17.3% of total net sales, for the year ended December 27, 2015.
Our biologics products include the BioFiberfollowing:
AUGMENT® Bone Graft. The newest addition to our biologics product portfolio is AUGMENT® Bone Graft. Our AUGMENT® Bone Graft product line is based on recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (rhPDGF-BB), a synthetic copy of one of the body’s principal healing agents. We obtained FDA approval of AUGMENT® Bone Graft for ankle and/or hindfoot fusion indications in the United States during third quarter of 2015. Prior to FDA approval, this product was available for sale in Canada for foot and ankle fusion indications and in Australia and New Zealand for hindfoot and ankle fusion indications. We acquired the AUGMENT® Bone Graft product line from BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. (BioMimetic) in March 2013.
Hard Tissue Repair. Our other bone or hard tissue repair products include our PRO-DENSE® Injectable Regenerative Graft. PRO-DENSE® is a composite graft composed of surgical grade calcium sulfate and calcium phosphate, and in animal studies, has demonstrated excellent bone regenerative characteristics, forming new bone that is over three times stronger than the natural surrounding bone at the 13-week time point. Beyond 13 weeks, the regenerated bone gradually remodels to natural bone strength. Our PRO-STIM® Injectable Inductive Graft is built on the PRO-DENSE® material platform, but adds demineralized bone matrix (DBM), and has demonstrated accelerated healing compared to autograft in pre-clinical testing. Our other hard tissue repair products, including our IGNITE® Power

Mix Injectable Stimulus, FUSIONFLEX™ Demineralized Moldable Scaffold, ALLOMATRIX® Injectable Putty, OSTEOSET® Resorbable Bead Kit, MIIG® Injectable Graft, CANCELLO-PURE® bone wedge line, and ALLOPURE® Allograft Bone Wedges.
Soft Tissue Repair. Our soft tissue repair products include our GRAFTJACKET® Regenerative Tissue Matrix, which is a human-derived soft tissue graft designed for augmentation of tendon and ligament repairs, such as those of the rotator cuff in the shoulder and Achilles tendon in the foot and ankle. GRAFTJACKET® Maxforce Extreme is our thickest GRAFTJACKET® matrix, which provides excellent suture holding power for augmenting challenging tendon and ligament repairs. We procure our GRAFTJACKET® product through an exclusive distribution agreement that expires December 31, 2018. Other soft tissue repair products include our CONEXA™ Reconstructive Tissue Matrix, ACTISHIELD™ and ACTISHIELD™ CF Amniotic Barrier Membranes, VIAFLOW™ and VIAFLOW™ C Flowable Placental Tissue Matrices, BIOFIBER® biologic absorbable scaffold products, and PHANTOM FIBER™ high strength, resorbable suture products.
Sports Medicine and Other
The sports medicine and other product category includes products used across several anatomic sites to mechanically repair tissue-to-tissue or tissue-to-bone injuries and Phantom Fiber high strength, resorbable sutureother ancillary products.

Because of its close relationship to extremityextremities joint replacement and bone fixation, our sports medicine and biologics portfolio is comprised of products used to complement our upper and lower extremityextremities product portfolios, providing surgeons a variety of products that may be used in upper and lower extremityextremities surgical procedures.

Our revenueglobal net sales from sports medicine and biologicsthis product category for the year ended December 29, 201325, 2016 was $14.8$23.2 million, or 5%3.4% of total revenue, which represents a decline in revenuenet sales, compared to $13.3 million, or 3.3% of 5% over the prior year.

Large Joints and Other

The large joints and other product category includes hip and knee joint replacement implants and other ancillary products, including instrumentation. Hip and knee joint replacements are used to treat patients with painful arthritis in these larger joints and to treat femoral fracture patients. We offer these products in France and select international geographies. We currently have no plans to actively market our large joint implants in the United States. Our global revenue from large joints and other productstotal net sales, for the year ended December 29, 2013 was $53.0 million,27, 2015.

Sales, Marketing, and Medical Education
Our sales and marketing efforts are focused primarily on orthopaedic, trauma, and podiatric surgeons. Orthopaedic surgeons focused on the extremities in many instances have completed upper or 17%lower extremities fellowship programs. We offer surgeon-to-surgeon education on our products using surgeon advisors in an instructional capacity. We have contractual relationships with these surgeon advisors, who help us train other surgeons in the safe and effective use of totalour products and help other surgeons perfect new surgical techniques. Together with these surgeon advisors, we provide surgeons extensive “hands on” orthopaedic training and education, including upper and lower extremities fellowships and masters courses that are not easily accessible through traditional medical training programs. We also offer clinical symposia and seminars, and publish advertisements and the results of clinical studies in industry publications. We believe that our history of innovation and focus on quality and improving clinical outcomes and “quality of life” for patients, along with our training programs, allow us to reach surgeons early in their careers and provide on-going value, which includes experiencing the clinical benefits of our products.
Due to the nature of specialized training surrounding podiatric and orthopaedic surgeons focused on extremities and biologics, our target market is well defined. Historically, surgeons are the primary decision-makers in orthopaedic device purchases. While we market our broad portfolio of products to surgeons, our revenue which represents growthis generated from sales of 1%our products to healthcare institutions and stocking distributors.
United States
As of December 25, 2016, our sales and distribution system in the United States consisted of 68 geographic sales territories that are staffed by approximately 500 direct sales representatives and 24 independent sales agencies or distributors. These sales representatives and independent sales agencies and distributors are generally aligned to selling either our upper extremities products or lower extremities products, but, in some cases, certain agencies or direct sales representatives sell products from both our upper and lower extremities product portfolios in their territories. Our direct sales representatives and independent sales agencies and distributors are provided opportunities for product training throughout the year. We also have working relationships with healthcare dealers, including group purchasing organizations, healthcare organizations, and integrated distribution networks. We believe our success in every market sector is dependent upon having a robust and compelling product offering, and equally as important, a dedicated, highly trained, focused sales organization to service our customers. We plan to continue to strategically focus on and invest in building a competitively superior U.S. sales organization by training and certifying our sales representatives on our innovative product portfolio, continuing to develop and implement strong performance management practices, and enhancing sales productivity. Further, we intend to selectively expand our U.S. sales force by adding about 85 new direct quota-carrying sales representatives, primarily weighted toward the lower extremities business.
International
Internationally, we utilize several distribution approaches that are tailored to the needs and requirements of each individual market. Our international sales and distribution system currently consists of 15 direct sales offices and approximately 90 distributors that sell our products in over 50 countries. We have subsidiaries with direct sales offices in the prior year.

United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, and Norway that employ direct sales employees, and in some cases, use independent sales representatives to sell our products in their respective markets. Our products are sold in other countries


in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America using stocking distribution partners. Stocking distributors purchase products directly from us for resale to their local customers, with product ownership generally passing to the distributor upon shipment.
Manufacturing, Facilities, and Supply

Quality

We utilize a combination of internal manufacturing and a network of qualified outsourced manufacturing partners to produce our products and surgical instrumentation. We manufacture our internally-sourced products in threesix locations: Arlington, Tennessee; Franklin, Tennessee; Montbonnot, France,France; Grenoble, FranceFrance; Nogent, France; and Macroom, Ireland. We lease the manufacturing facility in Arlington, Tennessee from the Industrial Development Board of the Town of Arlington. Our internal manufacturing operations are focused on product quality, continuous improvement, and efficiency.efficient production. Our internal manufacturing operations have been practicing lean manufacturing concepts for many years with a philosophy focused on high productivity, flexibility, and capacity optimization. Our operations in France have a long history and deep experience with orthopaedic manufacturing and process innovation. Additionally, we believe we are the only company to have vertically integrated operations for the manufacturing of pyrocarbon orthopaedic products. We believe that this capability gives us a competitive advantage in design for manufacturing and prototyping of this innovative material. Our Ireland location has been practicing Lean cellular manufacturing concepts for many years with a philosophy focused on high productivity, flexibility and capacity optimization.

We continually manage our internal capacity and in-source manufacturing where we can; however, we are willing to outsource products to our manufacturing partners when it provides us with cost efficiency, expertise, flexibility, and in instances where we need additional capacity. A significant portion of our lower extremities products and surgical instrumentation is produced to our specifications by qualified subcontractors who serve medical device companies. We also evaluatecontinuously look for opportunities to optimize our internal manufacturing capacity and insource manufacturing where we believe it makes sense to do so.
We maintain a comprehensive quality system that is certified to the potentialEuropean standards ISO 9001 and ISO 13485 and to in-sourcethe Canadian Medical Devices Conformity Assessment System (CMDCAS). We are accredited by the American Association of Tissue Banks (AATB) and have registrations with the FDA as a medical device establishment and as a tissue establishment. These certifications and registrations require periodic audits and inspections by various global regulatory entities to determine if we have systems in place to ensure our products currently purchased from outside vendors.

are safe and effective for their intended use and that we are compliant with applicable regulatory requirements. Our quality system exists so that management has the proper oversight, designs are evaluated and tested, production processes are established and maintained, and monitoring activities are in place to ensure products are safe, effective, and manufactured according to our specifications. Consequently, our quality system provides the way for us to ensure we design and build quality into our products while meeting global requirements. We are committed to meet or exceed customer needs as we strive to improve patient outcomes.

Supply
We use a diverse and broad range of raw materials in the manufacturing of our products. We purchase all of our raw materials and select components used in the manufacturing of our products from external suppliers. In addition, we purchase some supplies from single or limited number of sources for reasons of proprietary know-how, quality assurance, sole source, availability, cost-effectiveness, or constraints resulting from regulatory requirements. We work closely with our suppliers to ensure continuity of supply while maintaining high quality and reliability.
We rely on one supplier for the silicone elastomer used in certain number of our extremities products. We are aware of only two suppliers of silicone elastomer to the medical device industry for permanent implant usage. For certain biologic products, we depend on one supplier of demineralized bone matrix and cancellous bone matrix. We rely on one supplier for our GRAFTJACKET® family of soft tissue repair and graft containment products. We believe we maintain adequate stock from these suppliers to meet market demand. We rely on one supplier for a key component of our AUGMENT® Bone Graft. In December 2013, our supplier notified us of its intent to terminate the supply agreement in December 2015. This supplier was contractually required to meet our supply requirements until the termination date, and to use commercially reasonable efforts to assist us in identifying a new supplier and support the transfer of technology and supporting documentation to produce this component. In April 2016, we entered into a commercial supply agreement with FUJIFILM Diosynth Biotechnologies U.S.A., Inc. pursuant to which Fujifilm agreed to manufacture and sell to us and we agreed to purchase the key component of our AUGMENT® Bone Graft.  Pursuant to our supply agreement with Fujifilm, commercial production of the key component is expected to begin in 2019. Although we havebelieve that our current supply of the key component from our former supplier should be sufficient to last until after the component becomes available under the new agreement, no long-term supply contracts with any of these suppliers, we have not experienced, to date, any significant difficulty in locating and obtaining the materials necessary to fulfill our production requirements.

assurance can be provided that it will be sufficient.

Some of our products are provided by suppliers underprivate-label distribution agreements. Under these agreements, the supplier generally retains the intellectual property and exclusive manufacturing rights. The supplier private labels the products under the Tornier brandour brands for sale in certain fields of use and geographic territories. These agreements may be subject to minimum purchase or sales obligations. Ourprivate-label distribution agreements expire between this yearobligations and 2015 and are renewable under certain conditions or by mutual agreement. These agreements are terminable by either party upon notice and such agreements include some or all of the following provisions allowing for termination under certain circumstances: (i) either party’s uncured material breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement; (ii) either party filing for bankruptcy, being bankrupt or becoming insolvent, suspending payments, dissolving or ceasing commercial activity; (iii) our inability to meet market development milestones and ongoing sales targets; (iv) termination without cause, provided that payments are made to the distributor; (v) a merger or acquisition of one of the parties by a third party; (vi) the enactment of a government law or regulation that restricts either party’s right to terminate or renew the contract or invalidates any provision of the agreement or (vii) the occurrence of a “force majeure,” including natural disaster, explosion or war.notice. Ourprivate-label distribution agreements do not, individually or in the aggregate, represent a material portion of our business and we are not substantially dependent on them.

Our business, and the orthopaedic industry in general, is capital intensive, particularly as it relates to inventory levels and surgical instrumentation. Our business requires a significant level of inventory driven by our global footprint, the requirement to provide products within a short period of time, and the number of different sizes of many of our products. In addition, we must maintain

a significant investment in surgical instrumentation as we provide these instruments to healthcare facilities and surgeons for their use to facilitate the implantation of our products.

Competition
Competition in the orthopaedic device industry is intense and is characterized by extensive research efforts and rapid technological progress. Competitors include major and mid-sized companies in the orthopaedic and biologics industries, as well as academic institutions and other public and private research organizations that continue to conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish arrangements for commercializing products that will compete with our products.
The primary competitive factors facing us include price, quality, innovative design and technical capability, clinical results, breadth of product line, scale of operations, distribution capabilities, brand reputation, and strong customer service. Our ability to compete is affected by our ability to accomplish the following:
Develop new products and innovative technologies;
Obtain and maintain regulatory clearances or approvals and reimbursement for our products;
Manufacture and sell our products cost-effectively;
Meet all relevant quality standards for our products and their markets;
Respond to competitive pressures specific to each of our geographic markets, including our ability to enforce non-compete agreements;
Protect the proprietary technology of our products and manufacturing processes;
Market and promote our products;
Continue to maintain a high level of medical education for our surgeons on our products;
Attract and retain qualified scientific, management and sales employees and focused sales representatives; and
Support our technology with clinically relevant studies.
Research and Development

We

Realizing that new product offerings are a key to our future success, we are committed to a strong research and development program. The intent of our program focused on innovation.is to develop new extremities and biologics products and expand our current product offerings and the markets in which they are offered. Our research and development teams are organized and aligned with our product marketing teams and are focused on improving clinical outcomes by designing innovative, clinically differentiated products with improved ease-of-use and by developing new product features and by developing enhanced surgical techniques.techniques that can be leveraged across a broader base of surgeon customers. Our internal research and development teams work closely with external research and development consultants and a global network of leading surgeon inventorsphysicians and medical personnel in hospitals and universities to ensure we have broad access to best-in-class ideas and technologies to drive our product development pipeline. We also have an active business development team that actively evaluates novel technologies and development stage products. In addition, our clinical and regulatory departments are devoted to verifying the safety and efficacy of our products which our internal team can assist in bringingaccording to market.

regulatory standards enforced by the FDA and other international regulatory bodies. Our research and development expenses were $22.4totaled $50.5 million, $22.5$39.3 million and $19.8$25.0 million in 2013, 20122016, 2015 and 2011,2014, respectively. As of December 29, 2013, we had aOur research and development staff of approximately 76 people, or 7% of our total employees,activities are principally located in Memphis, Tennessee; Montbonnot, FranceFrance; and Warsaw, Indiana, with additional staff in Grenoble, France,France; and Bloomington, MinnesotaMinnesota.

In the extremities area, our research and Medina, Ohio.

Competition

The marketdevelopment activities focus on building upon our already comprehensive portfolio of surgical solutions for orthopaedic devices is highly competitiveextremities focused surgeons, including procedure and subjectanatomy specific products. With the ultimate goal of addressing unmet clinical needs, we often pursue multiple product solutions for a particular application in order to rapid and profound technological change. Our currently marketed products are, and any future products we commercialize likely will be, subject to intense competition. We believe that the principal competitive factors include innovative product features and design, brand reputation, strong customer service, andoffer surgeons the ability either to use their preferred procedural technique or to provide a full lineoptions and flexibility in the surgical setting with the understanding that one solution does not work for every case.

In the biologics area, we have research and development projects underway that are designed to provide differentiation of orthopaedic products.

our advanced materials in the marketplace. We face competition from large diversified orthopaedic manufacturers, such as DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, Biomet, Inc., Zimmer Corporation and Stryker Corporation, and established mid-sized orthopaedic manufacturers, such as Arthrex, Inc., Wright Medical Group, Inc., Exactech, Inc., Integra LifeSciences Corporation and ArthroCare Corporation. Many of the companies developing or marketing competitive orthopaedic products enjoy several competitive advantages over us, including:

greater financial and human resources for product development and sales and marketing;

greater name recognition;

established relationships with surgeons, hospitals and third party payors;

broader product lines and the ability to offer rebates or bundle products to offer greater discounts or incentives to gain a competitive advantage; and

established sales and marketing and distribution networks.

We also compete against smaller, entrepreneurial companies with niche product lines. Our competitors may increase their focusare particularly focused on the integration of our biologic product platforms into extremities market, which isprocedures and potential new applications for our primary strategic focus. Our competitors may develop and patent processes or products earlier than we can, obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for competing products more rapidly than we can or develop more effective or less expensive products or technologies that render our technology or products obsolete or non-competitive. We also compete with other organizations in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and sales personnel, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to our products or advantageous to our business. If our competitors are more successful than us in these matters, we may be unable to compete successfully against our existing and future competitors.

AUGMENT® Bone Graft.

Intellectual Property

Patents, trade secrets, know-how, and other proprietary rights are important to the continued success of our business. We believe ourcurrently own more than 1,500 patents are valuable and ourpending patents throughout the world. We currently have licenses to use approximately 800 patents. We seek to aggressively protect technology, inventions, and improvements that we consider important through the use of patents and trade secrets especiallyin the United States and significant foreign markets. We manufacture and market products under both

patents and license agreements with other parties. These patents and license agreements have a defined life and expire from time to time. We are not materially dependent on any one or more of our patents. In addition to patents, our knowledge and experience, creative product development, marketing staff and trade secret information, with respect to manufacturing processes, materials and product design, are alsoas important as our patents in maintaining our proprietary product lines.
Although we believe that, in the proprietary natureaggregate, our patents are valuable, and patent protection is beneficial to our business and competitive positioning, our patent protection will not necessarily deter or prevent competitors from attempting to develop similar products. There can be no assurances that our patents will provide competitive advantages for our products or that competitors will not challenge or circumvent these rights. In addition, there can be no assurances that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or foreign patent offices will issue any of our product lines.pending patent applications. The USPTO and foreign patent offices may deny or require a significant narrowing of the claims in our pending patent applications and the patents issuing from such applications. Any patents issuing from the pending patent applications may not provide us with significant commercial protection. We could incur substantial costs in proceedings before the USPTO or foreign patent offices, including opposition and other post-grant proceedings. These proceedings could result in adverse decisions as to the patentability, priority of our inventions, and the narrowing or invalidation of claims in issued patents. Additionally, the laws of some of the countries in which our products are or may be sold may not protect our intellectual property to the same extent as the laws in the United States or at all.
While we do not believe that any of our products infringe any valid claims of patents or other proprietary rights held by others, we are currently subject to patent infringement litigation and there can be no assurances that we do not infringe any patents or other proprietary rights held by them. If our products were found to infringe any proprietary right of another party, we could be required to pay significant damages or license fees to such party and/or cease production, marketing, and distribution of those products. Litigation also may be necessary to defend infringement claims of third parties or to enforce patent rights we hold or to protect trade secrets or techniques we own.
We rely upon continuing technological innovation, licensing opportunities,on trade secrets and other unpatented proprietary technology. There can be no assurances that we can meaningfully protect our creative product development and marketing staff, knowledge and experiencerights in our unpatented proprietary technology or that others will not independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary products or processes or otherwise gain access to develop and maintain our competitive position.

proprietary technology.

We protect our proprietary rights through a variety of methods. As a condition of employment, we generally require employees to execute an employment agreement relating to the confidential nature of and company ownership of proprietary information and assigning intellectual property rights to us. We generally require confidentiality agreements with vendors, consultants, and others who may have access to proprietary information. We generally limit access to our facilities and review the release of company information in advance of public disclosure.

We cannot There can be assuredno assurances, however, that our patents will provide competitive advantages for our products, or that our competitors will not challenge or circumvent these rights. In addition, we cannot be assured that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or foreign patent offices will issue any of our pending patent applications. The USPTO and foreign patent offices also may reject or require significant narrowing of claims in our pending patent applications affecting patents issuing from the pending patent applications. Any patents issuing from our pending patent applications may not provide us with significant commercial protection. We could incur substantial costs in proceedings before the USPTO or foreign patent offices, including opposition and other post-grant proceedings. These proceedings could result in adverse decisions as to the validity of our inventions. Additionally, the laws of some of the countries in which our products are or may be sold may not protect our products and intellectual property to the same extent as the laws in the United States, or at all. Litigation also may be necessary to enforce patent rights we own.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, which was adopted in September 2011, includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. Under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States will transition from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system for patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. The USPTO is currently developing regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act have recently become effective. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business.

We rely on trade secrets and other unpatented proprietary technology. We cannot be assured that we can meaningfully protect our rights in our unpatented proprietary technology or that others will not independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary products or processes or otherwise gain access to our proprietary technology. We seek to protect our trade secrets and proprietary know-how, in part, with confidentiality agreements with employees, vendors, and consultants. We cannot be assured, however, that the agreementsconsultants will not be breached, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach would be available, or that our competitors will not discover or independently develop our trade secrets. Litigation also may be necessary to protect trade secrets or techniques we own.

While we do not believe that any of our products infringe any valid claims of patents or other proprietary rights held by third parties, we cannot be assured that we do not infringe upon any patents or other proprietary rights held by third parties. If our products were found to infringe upon any proprietary right of a third party, we could be required to pay significant damages or license fees to the third party or cease production, marketing and distribution of those products. Litigation also may be necessary to enforce patent rights we hold or to protect trade secrets or techniques we own.

Government Regulation

We are subject to varying degrees of government regulation in the countries in which we conduct business. In some countries, such as the United States, Europe, Canada, and Japan, government regulation is significant and, we believe there is a general trend toward increased and more stringent regulation throughout the world. As a manufacturer and marketer of medical devices, we are subject to extensive regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, other federal governmental agencies, and state agencies in the United States and similar foreign governmental authorities in countries located outside the United States. These regulations generally govern the introduction of new medical devices,devices; the observance of certain standards with respect to the design, manufacture, testing, labeling, promotion, and sales of the devices,devices; the maintenance of certain records,records; the ability to track devices,devices; the reporting of potential product defects,defects; the import and export of devices,devices; as well as other matters. In addition, as a participant in the healthcare industry, we are also subject to

various other U.S. federal, state, and foreign laws.

On September 29, 2010, Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (WMT) entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG-HHS). The CIA expired on September 29, 2015 and on January 27, 2016, we received notification from the OIG-HHS that the term of the CIA has concluded. While the term of the CIA has concluded, our failure to continue to maintain compliance with U.S. healthcare laws, regulations and other requirements in the future could expose us to significant liability, including, but not limited to, exclusion from federal healthcare program participation, including Medicaid and Medicare, potential prosecution, civil and criminal fines or penalties, as well as additional litigation cost and expense.
We strive to comply with regulatory requirements governing our products and operations and to conduct our affairs in an ethical manner. This practice is reflected in our Code of Business Conduct, and Ethics, various other compliance policies and through the responsibility of the nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee of our board of directors, which oversees our corporate compliance program and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements as well as our ethical standards and policies. We devote significant time, effort, and expense to addressing the extensive government and regulatory requirements applicable to our business. Such regulatory requirements are subject to change and we cannot predict the effect, if any, that these changes might have on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Governmental regulatory actions against us could result in

warning letters, delays in approving or refusal to approve a product, the recall or seizure of our products, suspension or revocation of the authority necessary for the production or sale of our products, litigation expense, and other civil and criminal sanctions.

penalties against us and our officers and employees. If we fail to comply with these regulatory requirements, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be harmed.

United States

In the United States, numerous laws and regulations govern allour products are strictly regulated by the processes by which medical devices are brought to market and marketed. These includeFDA under the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and regulations issued or promulgated thereunder, among others. The FDA has enacted regulations that control all aspects of the development, manufacture, advertising, promotion and post-market surveillance of medical devices. In addition, the FDA controls the access of products to market through processes designed to ensure that only products that are safe and effective are made available to the public. All(FDC Act). Some of our products currently marketed inare also regulated by state agencies. FDA regulations and the United States have been listed, cleared or approved byrequirements of the FDA, in most cases by 510(k) clearance, except for certain low-risk devices that do not require FDA reviewFDC Act affect the pre-clinical and approval or clearance prior to commercial distribution, butclinical testing, design, manufacture, safety, efficacy, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, advertising, and promotion of our medical device products. Our tissue-based products are still subject to FDA regulations, the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), and various state agency regulations. We are an accredited member of the American Association of Tissue Banks and an FDA-registered tissue establishment, which includes the packaging, processing, storage, labeling, and distribution of tissue products regulated as medical devices and the storage and distribution of tissue products regulated solely as human cell and tissue products. In addition, we maintain tissue bank licenses in Florida, Maryland, New York, California, Illinois, Delaware, and Oregon.
Generally, before we can market a new medical device, marketing clearance from the FDA must be listed withobtained through either a premarket notification under Section 510(k) of the FDA.

Medical devices are subject to varying degreesFDC Act or the approval of regulatory control in the United States and are classified in one of three classes depending on risk and the extent of controls the FDA determines are necessary to reasonably ensure their safety and effectiveness.a de novo or premarket approval (PMA) application. Most of our products fall into anare FDA classification that requirescleared through the submission of a510(k) premarket notification (510(k)) toprocess. The FDA typically grants a 510(k) clearance if the FDA. This process requires us to demonstrateapplicant can establish that the device to be marketed is “substantially equivalent”substantially equivalent to a previously clearedpredicate device. It usually takes about three months from the date of a 510(k) devicesubmission to obtain clearance, but it may take longer, particularly if a clinical trial is required. The FDA may find that a 510(k) is not appropriate or a device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, referred tosubstantial equivalence has not been shown and, as a “predicate” device. In making this determination, the FDA compares the proposed new deviceresult, require a de novo or PMA application.

PMA applications must be supported by valid scientific evidence to the predicate device. After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any product modification that could significantly affectdemonstrate the safety orand effectiveness of the product, ordevice, typically including the results of human clinical trials, bench tests, and laboratory and animal studies. The PMA application must also contain a complete description of the device and its components, and a detailed description of the methods, facilities, and controls used to manufacture the device. In addition, the submission must include the proposed labeling and any product modification that would constitute a significant change in intended use, requires a new 510(k) clearance. If the modified devicetraining materials. The PMA application process is noexpensive and generally takes significantly longer substantially equivalent, it would require either de novo or a pre-market, or PMA, approval. The FDA is increasingly moving devices with slightly different proposed indication statement or different technological features offthan the 510(k) path and on to the de novo path resulting in more time and expense for us.

Ifprocess. Additionally, the FDA determines that our product does not qualify for 510(k) clearance, then we would be requiredmay never approve the PMA application. As part of the PMA application review process, the FDA generally will conduct an inspection of the manufacturer’s facilities to make a submission for a de novo approval or a PMA before marketing can begin. The PMA process requires us to provide clinicalensure compliance with applicable quality system regulatory requirements, which include quality control testing, documentation control, and laboratory data that establishes that the new device is safe and effective in an absolute sense as opposed to in a comparative sense as with a 510(k). Theother quality assurance procedures. A PMA can include post-approval conditions including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution, data reporting (surveillance), or requirements to do additional clinical studies post-approval. Even after approval of a PMA, the FDA must grant subsequent approvals for a new PMA or a PMA supplement is required to authorize certain modifications to the device, its labeling, or its manufacturing process.

One or more clinical trials may be required to support a 510(k) application or a de novo submission and almost always are required to support a PMA application. Clinical trials of unapproved or uncleared medical devices or devices being studied for uses for which they are not approved or cleared (investigational devices) must be conducted in compliance with FDA requirements. If human clinical trials of a medical device are required and the device presents a significant risk, the sponsor of the trial must file an investigational device exemption (IDE) application prior to commencing human clinical trials. The IDE application must be supported by data, typically including the results of animal and/or laboratory testing. If the IDE application is approved by the FDA and one or more institutional review boards (IRBs), human clinical trials may begin at a specific number of institutional investigational sites with the specific number of patients approved by the FDA. If the device presents a non-significant risk to the patient, a sponsor may begin the clinical trial after obtaining approval for the trial by one or more IRBs without separate approval from the FDA. Submission of an IDE does not give assurance that the FDA will approve the IDE. If an IDE is approved, there can be no assurance the FDA will determine that the data derived from the trials support the safety and effectiveness of the device or warrant the continuation of clinical trials. An IDE supplement must be submitted to and approved by the FDA before a sponsor or investigator may make a change to the investigational plan in such a way that may affect its scientific soundness, study indication, or the rights, safety or welfare of human subjects. During the trial, the sponsor must comply with the FDA’s IDE requirements including, for example, investigator selection, trial monitoring, adverse event reporting, and recordkeeping. The investigators must obtain patient informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan and trial protocol, control the disposition of investigational devices, and comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements. We, the FDA and the IRB at each institution at which a clinical trial is being conducted may suspend a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable risk. We are currently conducting a few clinical trials, including one in the United States involving our Simpliciti stemless shoulder.

trials.

After a device is cleared or approved for marketing, numerous and pervasive regulatory requirements continue to apply and we continue to be subject to inspection by the FDA to determine our compliance with these requirements, as do our suppliers, contract manufacturers, and contract testing laboratories. These requirements include, among others, the following:


Quality System regulations, which govern, among other things, how manufacturers design, test, manufacture, modify, label, exercise quality control over and document manufacturing of their products;

labeling and claims regulations, which require that promotion is truthful, not misleading, fairly balanced and provide adequate directions for use and that all claims are substantiated, and also prohibit the promotion of products for unapproved or “off-label” uses and impose other restrictions on labeling;

FDA guidance of off-label dissemination of information and responding to unsolicited requests for information;

Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulation, which requires reporting to the FDA certain adverse experiences associated with use of the product;our products;

complaint handling regulations designed to track, monitor, and resolve complaints related to our products;
Part 806 reporting of certain corrections, removals, enhancements, and recalls of products;

complying with federal law and regulations requiring Unique Device Identifiers (UDI) on devices and also requiring the submission of certain information about each device to FDA’s Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID); and
in some cases, ongoing monitoring and tracking of our products’ performance and periodic reporting to the FDA of such performance results.

Some of our biologics

The FDA has statutory authority to regulate allograft-based products, processing, and materials. The FDA and other international regulatory agencies have been working to establish more comprehensive regulatory frameworks for allograft-based tissue-containing products, which are principally derived from human cadaveric tissue. The framework developed by the FDA establishes risk-based criteria for determining whether a particular human tissue-based product will be classified as human tissue, a medical device, or a biologic drug requiring premarket clearance or approval. All tissue-based products are subject to extensive FDA regulation, including establishment registration requirements, product listing requirements, good tissue practice requirements for manufacturing, and screening requirements that ensure that diseases are not onlytransmitted to tissue recipients. The FDA has also proposed extensive additional requirements that address sub-contracted tissue services, tracking to the FDA’s medical device regulations, but also specific regulations governingrecipient/patient, and donor records review. If a tissue-based product is considered human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps. Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, authorizestissue, the FDA to issue regulations to preventrequirements focus on preventing the introduction, transmission, orand spread of communicable disease. HCT/Ps regulated as “361” HCT/Ps are subjectdiseases to recipients. Neither clinical data nor review of safety and efficacy is required before the tissue can be marketed. However, if the tissue is considered a medical device or a biologic drug, then FDA clearance or approval is required.
The FDA and international regulatory authorities periodically inspect us and our third-party manufacturers for compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. These requirements relatinginclude labeling regulations, manufacturing regulations, quality system regulations, regulations governing unapproved or off-label uses, and medical device regulations. Medical device regulations require a manufacturer to registering facilities and listing products withreport to the FDA screening and testing for tissue donor eligibility, Good Tissue Practice when processing, storing, labeling, and distributing HCT/Ps, including required labeling information, stringent record keeping, andserious adverse event reporting, among other applicable requirements and laws.

events or certain types of malfunctions involving its products.

We are subject to various U.S. federal and state laws concerning healthcare fraud and abuse, including anti-kickback and false claims laws, and other matters. The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute (and similar state laws) prohibits certain illegal remuneration to physicians and other health care providers that may financially bias prescription decisions and result in an over-utilization of goods and services reimbursed by the federal government. The U.S. federal False Claims Act (and similar state laws) prohibits conduct on the part of a manufacturer which may cause or induce an inappropriate reimbursement for devices reimbursed by the federal government. We are also subject to the U.S. federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act and various state laws on reporting remunerative relationships with healthcare providers. These laws impact the kinds of financial arrangements we may have with hospitals, surgeons or other potential purchasers of our products. They particularly impact how we structure our sales offerings, including discount practices, customer support, education and training programs, physician consulting, research grants and other arrangements. These laws are administered by, among others, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services and state attorneys general. Many of these agencies have increased their enforcement activities with respect to medical device manufacturers in recent years. ViolationsIf our operations are found to be in violation of these laws, are punishable bywe may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal, civil and/or civil sanctions, including, in some instances,administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment anddisgorgement, exclusion from participation in federal government healthcare programs, including Medicare, Medicaidcontractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and Veterans Administration (VA) health programs. future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.
We are also subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the U.S. federal Physician Sunshine Payment Actgovernment and various state laws on reporting remunerative relationships with healthcare customers. We are also subject to various federal and state laws that protect the confidentiality of certain patient health information, including patient medical records, and restrict the use and disclosure of patient health information by healthcare providers, such as thestates in which we conduct our business. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), and their respective implementing regulations, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as service providers of covered entities that create, receive, maintain, or HIPAA.

transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties and gave state attorneys general new


authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, many state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from HIPAA and each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect.
The FDA, in cooperation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, administers controls over the import of medical devices into the United States. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection imposes its own regulatory requirements on the import of our products, including inspection and possible sanctions for noncompliance. We are also subject to foreign trade controls administered by certain U.S. government agencies, including the Bureau of Industry and Security within the Commerce Department and the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the Treasury Department.

International

Outside the United States, we are subject to government regulation in the countries in which we operate.operate and sell our products. We must comply with extensive regulations governing product approvals, product safety, quality, manufacturing, and reimbursement processes in order to market our products in all major foreign markets. Although many of the regulations applicable to our products in these countries are similar to those of the FDA, these regulations vary significantly from country to country and with respect to the nature of the particular medical device. The time required to obtain foreign approvals to market our products may be longer or shorter than the time required in the United States, and requirements for such approvals may differ from FDA requirements.

To market our product devices in the member countries of the European Union, we are required to comply with the European Medical Device Directives and to obtain CE mark certification. CE mark certification is the European symbol of adherence to quality assurance standards and compliance with applicable European Medical Device Directives. Under the European Medical Device Directives, all medical devices must qualify for CE marking. To obtain authorization to affix the CE mark to one of our products, a recognized European Notified Body must assess our quality systems and the product’s conformity to the requirements of the European Medical Device Directives. We are subject to inspection by the Notified Bodies for compliance with these requirements. We also are required to comply with regulations of other countries in which areour products are sold, such as obtaining Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare approval in Japan, Health Protection Branch approval in Canada and Therapeutic Goods Administration approval in Australia.

Our manufacturing facilities in France and Ireland are subject to environmental health and safety laws and regulations, including those relating to the use, registration, handling, storage, disposal, recycling and human exposure to hazardous materials and discharges of substances in the air, water and land. For example, in France, requirements known as the Installations Classées pour la Protection de l’Environnement regime provide for specific environmental standards related to industrial operations such as noise, water treatment, air quality, and energy consumption. In Ireland, our manufacturing facilities are likewise subject to local environmental regulations, such as related to water pollution and water quality, which are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Our operations in countries outside the United States are subject to various other laws such as those regarding recordkeeping and privacy,privacy; laws regarding sanctioned countries, entities and persons,persons; customs and import-export, and laws regarding transactions in foreign countries andcountries. We are also subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which generally prohibits covered entities and their intermediaries from engaging in bribery or making other prohibited payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or other benefits, as well as similar anti-corruption laws of other countries, such as the UK Bribery Act.

Third-Party Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales volumes and prices of our products depend in large part on the availability of coverage and reimbursement fromthird-party payors.Third-party payors may include governmental programs such as the U.S. Medicare and Medicaid programs, private insurance plans, and workers’ compensation plans. Thesethird-party payors may deny coverage or reimbursement for a product or procedure if they determine that the product or procedure is investigational or was not medically appropriate or necessary. Thethird-partyThird-party payors also may place limitations for coverage on products or procedures such as the types of conditions for which a procedure will be covered, the types of physicians that can perform specific types of procedures.procedures or the care setting in which the procedure may be performed, e.g., out-patient or in-hospital. Also,third-party payors are increasingly auditing and challenging the prices charged for medical products and services.services with concern for upcoding, miscoding, using inappropriate modifiers, or billing for inappropriate care settings. Somethird-party payors must approvemay require prior-authorization, pre-determination, and/or prior approval in a determination of coverage for new or innovative devices or procedures before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use the products or therapies. Even though a new product may have been approved or cleared for commercial distribution by the FDA, we may find limited demand for the product untilshould any reimbursement approval has beenbarriers arise from governmental and/or private third-party payors. In the United States, a uniform policy of coverage does not exist across all third-party payors relative to payment of claims for all products. Therefore, coverage and payment can be quite different from payor to payor, and from one region of the country to another. This is also true for foreign countries in that coverage and payment systems vary from country to country. Coverage also depends on our ability to demonstrate the short-term and long-term clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of our products. These supportive data are obtained from governmentalsurgeon clinical experience, clinical trials, and privatethird-party payors.

literature


reviews. We pursue and present these results at major scientific and medical meetings, and publish them in respected, peer-reviewed medical journals because data and evidence that can support coverage and payment are important to the successful commercialization and market access of our products.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or CMS,(CMS), the U.S. agency responsible for administering the Medicare program, sets coverage and reimbursement policies for the Medicare program in the United States. CMS policies may alter coverage and payment related to our product portfolioproducts in the future. These changes may occur as the result of national coverage determinations issued by CMS or as the result of local coverage determinations by contractors under contract with CMS to review and make coverage and payment decisions. Medicaid programs are funded by both U.S. federal and state governments, may vary from state to state and from year to year and will likely play an even larger role in healthcare funding pursuant to theunder recently enacted, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, collectively, the PPACA.

potentially newly enacted, healthcare legislation. A key component in ensuring whether the appropriate payment amount is received for physician and other services, including those procedures using our products, is the existence of a Current Procedural Terminology or CPT,(CPT) code. To receive payment, health carehealthcare practitioners must submit claims to insurers using these codes for payment for medical services. CPT codes are assigned, maintained and annually updated by the American Medical Association and its CPT Editorial Board. If the CPT codes that apply to the procedures performed using our products are changed, reimbursement for performances of these procedures may be adversely affected.

In the United States, some insured individuals enroll in managed care programs, which monitor and often require pre-approval of the services that a member will receive. Some managed care programs pay their providers on a per capita (patient) basis, which puts the providers at financial risk for the services provided to their patients by paying these providers a predetermined payment per member per month and, consequently, may limit the willingness of these providers to use our products.

We believe that the overall escalating cost of medical products and services being paid for by the governmentgovernments and private health insurance has led to, and will continue to lead to, increased pressures on the healthcare and medical device industry to reduce the costs of products and services. Allthird-party reimbursement programsThird-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs through healthcare reform legislation and measures including, but not limited to, government-managed healthcare systems, bundled payments, episode of care risk sharing methodologies, health technology assessments, coverage with evidence development processes, quality initiatives, pay-for-performance, comparative effectiveness research, prospective reimbursement, and capitation programs, group purchasing, redesign of benefits,benefit offerings, requiring pre-approvals and second opinions prior to major surgery,procedures, careful review of bills, encouragement of healthier lifestyles and other preventative services, and exploration of more cost-effective methods of delivering healthcare. All of these types of health care reform measures and any others could potentially impact market access for, and pricing structures of our products, which in turn, can impact our future sales. There can be no assurance thatthird-party reimbursement and coverage will be available or adequate, or that current and future legislation, regulation or reimbursement policies ofthird-party payors will not adversely affect the demand for our products or our ability to sell theseour products on a profitable basis. The unavailability or inadequacy ofthird-party payor coverage or reimbursement could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition.

Outside the United States, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific product lines and procedures. There can be no assurance that procedures using our products will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, that our products will be considered cost-effective bythird-party payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be available or that thethird-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell our products profitably. We believe we have received increased requests for clinical data for the support of registration and reimbursement outside the United States and Europe. More and more,States. We have increasingly experienced local, product specific reimbursement law isbeing applied as an overlay to medical device regulation, which has provided an additional layer of clearance requirement. Specifically, Australia now requires that clinical data for clearance and reimbursement be in the form of prospective, multi-center studies, a high bar not previously applied. In addition, in France, certain innovative devices (such as some of our products made from pyrolytic carbon), have been identified as needing to provide clinical evidence to support a “mark-specific” reimbursement.

Seasonality There can be no assurances that procedures using our products will be considered medically reasonable and Backlog

necessary for a specific indication, that our products will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be available, or that the third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell our products profitably.

Environmental
Our operations and properties are subject to extensive U.S. federal, state, local, and foreign environmental protection and health and safety laws and regulations. These laws and regulations govern, among other things, the generation, storage, handling, use, and transportation of hazardous materials and the handling and disposal of hazardous waste generated at our facilities. Under such laws and regulations, we are required to obtain permits from governmental authorities for some of our operations. If we violate or fail to comply with these laws, regulations or permits, we could be fined or otherwise sanctioned by regulators. Under some environmental laws and regulations, we could also be held responsible for all of the costs relating to any contamination at our past or present facilities and at third-party waste disposal sites. We believe our costs of complying with current and future environmental laws, regulations and permits and our liabilities arising from past or future releases of, or exposure to, hazardous substances will not materially adversely affect our business, is somewhat seasonalresults of operations, or financial condition, although there can be no assurances of this.
Seasonality
We traditionally experience lower sales volumes in nature,the third quarter than throughout the rest of the year as many of our products are used in elective procedures, which typicallygenerally decline during June, July, and AugustAugust. This typically results in our selling, general and can increase atadministrative expenses and research and development expenses as a percentage of our net sales that are higher during third

quarter than throughout the endrest of the year onceyear. In addition, our first quarter selling, general and administrative expenses include additional expenses that we incur in connection with the annual deductibles have been met on health insurance plans. Additionally, elective procedures typically decline in certain partsmeeting held by the American College of Europe duringFoot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) and the third quarterAmerican Academy of the year due to holidayOrthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). During these three-day events, we display our most recent and vacation schedules.

innovative products.

Backlog
The time period between the placement of an order for our products and shipment is generally short. As such, we do not consider our backlog of firm orders to be material to an understanding of our business.

Employees

As of December 29, 2013,25, 2016, we had 1,076 employees, including 405 in manufacturing and operations, 76 in research and development and2,394 employees. We believe that we have a good relationship with our employees.
Available Information
We are a public company with limited liability (naamloze vennootschap) organized under the remaining in sales, marketing, quality, regulatory and related administrative support. Of our 1,076 worldwide employees, 391 employees were located in the United States and 685 employees were located outsidelaws of the United States, primarilyNetherlands. We were initially formed as a private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap) in France and Ireland.

Financial Information about Geographical Areas

See Note 13 to our consolidated financial statements for information regarding our revenues and long-lived assets by geographic area.

Available Information

June 2006. Our principal executive offices are located at Prins Bernhardplein 200, 1097 JB Amsterdam, Thethe Netherlands. Our telephone number at this address is (+31) 20 675-4002.521 4777. Our agent for service of process in the United States is CT Corporation, 1209 Orange St.,Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. Our corporate website is located at www.tornier.com.www.wright.com. The information contained on our website or connected to our website is not incorporated by reference into and should not be considered part of this report.

We make available, free of charge and through our Internet web site,corporate website, our annual reportsAnnual Reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reportsQuarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, current reportsCurrent Reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to any such reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after wethey are electronically file such materialfiled with or furnish itfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission.



ITEM

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

Risk Factors.

We are affected by risks specific to us as well as factors that affect all businesses operating in a global market. The following is a discussionIn addition to the other information set forth in this report, careful consideration should be taken of the specific risks thatfactors described below, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or operating results:

results. The risk factors described below may relate solely to one or more of the legal entities contained in our corporate structure and may not necessarily apply to Wright Medical Group N.V. or one or more of the other legal entities contained in our corporate structure.

Risks Related to the Wright/Tornier Merger
We may be unable to successfully integrate our operations or realize the anticipated cost savings, net sales and other potential benefits of the Wright/Tornier merger in a timely manner or at all. As a result, the value of our ordinary shares may be adversely affected.
The success of the merger between legacy Wright and legacy Tornier will depend, in part, on our ability to achieve the anticipated cost savings, net sales, and other potential benefits of the merger. Achieving the anticipated potential benefits of the merger will depend in part upon whether we are able to integrate our operations in an efficient and effective manner and whether we are able to effectively coordinate sales and marketing efforts to communicate our capabilities and coordinate our sales organizations to sell our combined products. While we have successfully completed a substantial number of integration activities since the merger, the remainder of our integration activities may not be completed smoothly or successfully. The necessity of coordinating geographically separated organizations, systems, and facilities and addressing possible differences in business backgrounds, corporate cultures, and management philosophies may increase the difficulties of integration. We operate numerous systems, including those involving management information, purchasing, accounting and finance, sales, billing, payroll, employee benefits, and regulatory compliance. We still have numerous systems which remain to be integrated, including those involving management information, purchasing, accounting and finance, sales, billing, payroll, employee benefits, and regulatory compliance. We may still have inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures or policies that could affect our ability to maintain relationships with customers and employees or to achieve the anticipated benefits of the merger. We may also have difficulty in completing the integration of our commercial organizations, including in particular distribution and sales representative arrangements, some of which will undergo territory transitions during the next several quarters. The integration of certain operations requires the dedication of significant management resources, which may temporarily distract management’s attention from our day-to-day business. Employee uncertainty and lack of focus during the integration process may also disrupt our business. Any inability of our management to integrate successfully our operations or to do so within a longer time frame than expected could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. The integration also may result in material unanticipated problems, expenses, liabilities, competitive responses, and loss of customer relationships. Even if the operations of our businesses are integrated successfully, we may not be able to realize the full benefits of the merger, including the anticipated operating and cost synergies, sales and growth opportunities or long-term strategic benefits of the merger, within the expected timeframe or at all. In addition, we expect to continue to incur significant integration and restructuring expenses to realize synergies. However, many of the expenses that remain to be incurred are, by their nature, difficult to estimate accurately. These expenses could, particularly in the near term, exceed the savings that we expect to achieve from elimination of duplicative expenses and the realization of economies of scale and cost savings. Although we expect that the realization of efficiencies related to the integration of the businesses may offset incremental transaction, merger-related, and restructuring costs over time, we cannot give any assurance that this net benefit will be achieved in the near term, or at all. An inability to realize the full extent of, or any of, the anticipated benefits of the merger, as well as any delays encountered in the integration process, could have an adverse effect on our business and operating results, which may affect the value of our ordinary shares.
Our Businessfuture success also will depend in part upon our ability to retain key employees. Competition for qualified personnel can be very intense. In addition, key employees may depart because of issues relating to the uncertainty or difficulty of integration or a desire not to remain with our company. Accordingly, no assurances can be given that we will retain key employees.
Our future results will suffer if we do not effectively manage our expanded operations as a result of the merger.
As a result of the merger, the size of our business has increased significantly. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to manage this expanded business, which may pose substantial challenges for our management, including challenges related to the management and Our Industry

monitoring of new operations and associated increased costs and complexity. There can be no assurances that we will be successful or that we will realize the expected operating efficiencies, cost savings, and other benefits currently anticipated from the merger.

Efforts to integrate our Corporate Compliance Programs require the cooperation of many individuals and will likely require substantial investment and divert a significant amount of future time and resources from our other business activities.
We are committed to a robust Corporate Compliance Program. In furtherance of this strategic objective, we have devoted a significant amount of time and resources since the completion of the merger to integrate the Corporate Compliance Programs of legacy Wright and legacy Tornier. This has required, and will continue to require, a significant amount of time and resources from

our financial, human resources, and compliance personnel, as well as all of our employees. Successful integration of our Corporate Compliance Programs requires the full and sustained cooperation of all of our employees, distributors, and sales agents, as well as the healthcare professionals with whom we interact. These efforts require significant expenses and investments. We also may encounter inefficiencies in the integration of our compliance programs, including delays in medical education, research and development projects, and clinical studies, which may unfavorably impact our business and relationships with customers. If we fail to integrate successfully the Corporate Compliance Programs of legacy Wright and legacy Tornier, our business and operating results may be adversely affected.
In connection with the accounting for the merger, we recorded a significant amount of goodwill and other intangible assets, which if the acquired business does not perform well, may be subject to future impairment, which would harm our operating results.
In connection with the accounting for the merger, we recorded a significant amount of goodwill and other intangible assets within each of our reporting units. As of December 25, 2016, we had $851.0 million in goodwill and $231.8 million in intangible assets. As part of the Wright/Tornier merger, we recorded $667.3 million in goodwill and $213.6 million in other intangible assets. Under US GAAP, we must assess, at least annually and potentially more frequently, whether the value of our goodwill and intangible assets have been impaired. A decrease in the long-term economic outlook and future cash flows of the legacy Tornier business that we acquired could significantly impact asset values and potentially result in the impairment of intangible assets, including goodwill. If the operating performance of the legacy Tornier business significantly decreases, competing or alternative technologies emerge, or if market conditions or future cash flow estimates decline, we could be required, under current US GAAP, to record a non-cash charge to operating earnings for the amount of the impairment. Any write-off of a material portion of our unamortized intangible assets would negatively affect our results of operations.
We have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant transaction and integration-related costs in connection with the merger and the integration of our operations.
We have incurred and expect to continue to incur a number of non-recurring costs associated with the merger and integrating our operations. The substantial majority of non-recurring expenses resulting from the merger will be comprised of transaction costs related to the merger, employment-related costs, and facilities and systems consolidation costs. Although we expect that the elimination of duplicative costs, as well as the realization of other efficiencies related to the integration of our businesses should allow us to offset incremental transaction and integration-related costs over time, this net benefit may not be achieved in the near term, or at all.
Risks Related to our Business
We have a history of operating losses and negative cash flow and may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We have a history of operating losses and at December 29, 2013,25, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $272.2$1,206 million. Our ability to achieve profitability will be influenced by many factors, including, among others, the extent and durationsuccess of our future operating losses,the Wright/Tornier merger; the level and timing of future revenuenet sales and expenditures,expenditures; development, commercialization and market acceptance of new products,products; the results and scope of ongoing research and development projects, the success of our direct sales force and independent distributor and sales agency organization and transitions related thereto,projects; competing technologies and market developments anddevelopments; regulatory requirements and delays.delays; and pending litigation. As a result, we may continue to incur operating losses for the foreseeable future. These losses will continue to have an adverse impact on our shareholders’ equity, and we may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We have transitionedanticipate significant sales during 2017 and in future years from our U.S. sales channel from a network of independent sales agencies that soldAUGMENT® Bone Graft product. If we are wrong, our fullfuture operating results, cash flows, and prospects could be adversely affected.
The newest addition to our biologics product portfolio tois AUGMENT® Bone Graft, which is based on recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (rhPDGF-BB), a combinationsynthetic copy of direct sales teams and independent sales agencies that are individually focused on selling either upper extremity products or lower extremity products acrossone of the territories that they serve. This transition has had, and likely will continue to have, an adverse effect on our operations and operating results and, ultimately, may not prove to be successful.

In the United States, we historically had a single sales channel that consistedbody’s principal healing agents. We obtained FDA approval of a network of independent commission-based sales agencies, along with direct sales representation in certain territories. As a result of our acquisition of OrthoHelix in October 2012, we decided to transition to a combination of direct sales teams and independent sales agencies that are individually focused on selling either upper extremity products or lower extremity products across the territories that they serve. We believe this strategy provides increased focus to our sales teams and allows us to increase the product proficiency of our sales representatives and increase our selling opportunities by improving our overall procedure coverage, leveraging our entire product portfolio, and accessing new specialists, general surgeons and accounts. However, we may be incorrect and it is possible that our separate sales strategy may be unsuccessful.

To create these separate upper and lower extremity sales channels, we terminated relationships with certain independent sales agencies and transitioned these territories to new agencies or established direct sales representation; acquired sales agencies and established direct sales representation; or transitioned an upper or lower extremity product portfolio between agencies or from an agency to a new direct sales team. This transition caused disruption in our U.S. sales channel during 2013 and we expect that this disruption will continue throughout 2014 as we continue to separate territories, hire additional sales representatives and educate and train our sales teams. It is also possible that we may become subject to litigation and incur future charges and cash expenditures in connection with this transition, which charges and cash expenditures would adversely affect our operating results.

We rely on distributors, independent sales agencies and their representatives to market and sell our products in certain territories. A failure to retain our existing relationships with these distributors, independent sales agencies and their representatives or changes and transitions with respect to our sales organization have had and could continue to have an adverse effect on our operations and operating results.

Our success is partially dependent upon our ability to retain and motivate our distributors, independent sales agencies and their representatives to sell our products in certain territories. We depend on their sales and service expertise and their relationships with surgeons in the marketplace. Our distribution systemAUGMENT® Bone Graft in the United States for ankle and/or hindfoot fusion indications during third quarter of 2015. AUGMENT® Bone Graft is currently consists of approximately 145 direct sales representatives and approximately 40 independent sales agencies that sell our products. Internationally, we currently utilize several distribution approaches depending on individual market requirements and,available for sale as a result, our international distribution system consists of 13 direct sales offices and approximately 25 distributors that sell our productsan alternative to autograft in approximately 45 countries. As part of our strategy to grow internationally, we have selectively converted from distributor representation to direct sales representation in certain countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Japan, Australia and Canada, and we have selectively converted from direct sales representation to distributor representation in certain countries, including Spain, during the past few years.

We do not control our distributors or independent sales agencies and they may not be successful in implementing our marketing plans. Some of our distributors and independent sales agencies do not sell our products exclusively and may offer similar products from other orthopaedic companies. Our distributors and independent sales agencies may terminate their contracts with us, may devote insufficient sales efforts to our products or may focus their sales efforts on other products that produce greater commissions for them. A failure to maintain our existing relationships with or changes and transitions with respect to our distributors and independent sales agencies and their representatives have had and could continue to have an adverse effect on our operations and operating results.

If we do not successfully develop and market new products and technologies and implement our business strategy, our business and operating results may be adversely affected.

We may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy. To implement our business strategy we need to, among other things, develop and introduce new extremity joint products, find new applications for and improve our existing products, properly identify and anticipate our surgeons’ and their patients’ needs, obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for new products and applications and educate surgeons about the clinical and cost benefits of our products. We are continually engaged in product development and improvement programs, and we expect new products to account for a significant portion of our future growth. If we do not continue to introduce new products and technologies, or if those products and technologies are not accepted, we may not be successful. Moreover, research and development efforts may require a substantial investment of time and resources before we are adequately able to determine the commercial viability of a new product, technology, material or innovation. Demand for our products also could change in ways we may not anticipate due to evolving customer needs, changing demographics, slow industry growth rates, evolving surgical philosophies and evolving industry standards, among others. Additionally, our competitors’ new products and technologies may precede our products to market, may be more effective or less expensive than our products or may render our products obsolete. Our new products and technologies also could render our existing products obsolete and thus adversely affect sales of our existing products and lead to increased expense for excess and obsolete inventory. For example, we believe that sales of our Aequalis Ascend Flex convertible shoulder system may adversely affect demand for and sales of our other mature shoulder products. Our targeted surgeons practice in areas such as shoulder, upper extremities, lower extremities, sports medicine and reconstructive and general orthopaedics, and our strategy of focusing primarily on these surgeons may not be successful. Even if we successfully implement our business strategy, our operating results may not improve. We may decide to alter or discontinue aspects of our business strategy and may adopt different strategies due to business or competitive factors, which could negatively impact our operating results.

We may be unable to compete successfully against our existing or potential competitors, in which case our revenue and operating results may be negatively affected and we may not grow.

The market for orthopaedic devices is highly competitive and subject to rapid and profound technological change. Our success depends, in part, on our ability to maintain a competitive position in the development of technologies and products for use by our customers. We face competition from large diversified orthopaedic manufacturers, such as DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, Zimmer Corporation, Biomet, Inc. and Stryker Corporation, and established mid-sized orthopaedic manufacturers, such as Arthrex, Inc., Wright Medical Group, Inc., Exactech, Inc., Integra LifeSciences Corporation and ArthroCare Corporation. Many of the companies developing or marketing competitive orthopaedic products enjoy several competitive advantages over us, including:

greater financial and human resources for product development and sales and marketing;

greater name recognition;

established relationships with surgeons, hospitals and third-party payors;

broader product lines and the ability to offer rebates or bundle products to offer greater discounts or incentives to gain a competitive advantage; and

established sales and marketing and distribution networks.

We also compete against smaller, entrepreneurial companies with niche product lines. Some of our competitors have indicated an increased focus on the extremities market, which is our primary strategic focus. Our competitors may develop and patent processes or products earlier than us, obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for competing products more rapidly than us, develop more effective or less expensive products or technologies that render our technology or products obsolete or non-competitive or acquire technologies and technology licenses complementary to our products or advantageous to our business. Not all of our sales and other personnel have non-compete agreements. We also compete with other organizations in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales and management personnel. If our competitors are more successful than us in these matters, we may be unable to compete successfully against our existing or future competitors.

We derive a significant portion of our revenue from operations in markets outside the United States, which exposes us to additional risks.

We derive a significant portion of our revenue from operations in markets outside the United States. Our distribution system outside the United States consists of 13 direct sales offices and approximately 25 distribution partners, who together sell in approximately 45 countries. Most of these countries are, to some degree, subject to political, economic and social instability. For 2013 and 2012, approximately 41% and 44% of our revenue, respectively, was derived from our operations outside the United States, including 19% of our revenue from France for both 2013 and 2012. Any material decrease in our international revenue may negatively affect our profitability. In the future, we intend to further expand our international operations into key markets, such as Brazil and China, as we have done, for example, in 2013, when we acquired certain

assets of our distributors in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom and established direct sales forces in such countries, and in 2012, when we opened a direct sales office in Japan and acquired our exclusive distributor in Belgium and Luxembourg. Our international sales operations expose us and our representatives, agents and distributors to risks inherent in operating in foreign jurisdictions. These risks include:

the imposition of additional U.S. and foreign governmental controls or regulations on orthopaedic implants and biologics products;

the imposition of costly and lengthy new export and import license requirements;

the imposition of U.S. or international sanctions against a country, company, person or entity with whom we do business that would restrict or prohibit continued business with that country, company, person or entity;

economic instability, including the European sovereign debt crisis and the austerity measures taken and to be taken by certain countries in response to such crisis, and the currency risk between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies in our target markets;

the imposition of restrictions on the activities of foreign agents, representatives and distributors;

scrutiny of foreign tax authorities, which could result in significant fines, penalties and additional taxes being imposed upon us;

a shortage of high-quality international salespeople and distributors;

loss of any key personnel who possess proprietary knowledge or are otherwise important to our success in international markets;

significant and financially debilitating product liability exposure of which we are currently unaware;

changes in third-party reimbursement policies that may require some of the patients who receive our products to directly absorb medical costs or that may require us to sell our products at lower prices;

unexpected changes in foreign regulatory requirements;

differing local product preferences and product requirements;

changes in tariffs and other trade restrictions;

work stoppages or strikes in the healthcare industry;

difficulties in enforcing and defending intellectual property rights;

foreign exchange controls that might prevent us from repatriating cash earned in countries outside the Netherlands;

complex data privacy requirements and labor relations laws; and

exposure to different legal and political standards.

Not only are we subject to the laws of jurisdictions located outside the United States in which we do business, but we also are subject to U.S. laws governing our activities in foreign countries, including various import-export laws, customs and import laws, anti-boycott laws and embargoes. For example, the FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1996 requires that, when exporting medical devices from the United States for saleankle and/or hindfoot fusion indications, in a foreign country, depending onCanada for foot and ankle fusion indications and in Australia and New Zealand for hindfoot and ankle fusion indications. We anticipate significant sales during 2017 and in future years from our AUGMENT® Bone Graft product. If we are wrong, our future operating results, cash flows, and prospects could be adversely affected. We acquired the type ofAUGMENT® Bone Graft product being exported, the regulatory status of the productline from BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. (BioMimetic) in March 2013 and the country to which the device is exported, we must ensure, among other things, that the device is produced in accordance with the specifications of the foreign purchaser; not in conflict with the laws of the country to which it is intended for export; labeled for export; and not offered for sale domestically. In addition, we must maintain records relevant to product export and, if requested by the foreign government, obtain a certificate of exportability. In some instances, prior notification to or approval from the FDA is required prior to export. The FDA can delay or deny export authorization if all applicable requirements are not satisfied. Imports of approved medical devices into the United States also are subject to requirements including registration of establishment, listing of devices, manufacturing in accordance with the quality system regulation, medical device reporting of adverse events, and premarket notification 510(k) clearance or premarket approval, or PMA, among others and if applicable. If our business activities were determined to violate these laws, regulations or rules, we could suffer serious consequences.

In addition, a portion of our international revenue is made through distributors. As a result, we are dependent upon the financial health of our distributors. We also are dependent upon the compliance of our distributors with foreign laws and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA, as it relates to certain “facilitating”future milestone payments made to those employed by or acting on behalf of a foreign government in the procurement, sale and prescription of medical devices. If a distributor were to go out of business, it would take substantial time, cost and resources to find a suitable replacement and the products held by such distributor may not be returned to us or to a subsequent distributor in a timely manner or at all.

Disruption and turmoil in global credit and financial markets, which may be exacerbated by the inability of certain countries to continue to service their sovereign debt obligations and certain austerity measures countries have implemented, and the possible negative implications of such events to the global economy, may negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition.

A substantial portion of our revenue outside the United States is generated in the European Union, or EU, including in particular France. The credit and economic conditions within certain European Union countries, including France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain in particular, and the possibility that they may default on their debt obligations, have contributed to instability in global credit and financial markets during the past couple of years. The continued possibility that such EU member states may default on their debt obligations, the continued uncertainty regarding international and the European Union’s financial support programs and the continued possibility that other EU member states may experience similar financial troubles could further disrupt global credit and financial markets. While the ultimate outcome of these events cannot be predicted, it is possible that such events could continue to have a negative effect on the global economy as a whole, and our business, operating results and financial condition, in particular. For example, if the European sovereign debt crisis continues or worsens, the negative implications to the global economy and us could be significant. Since a significant amount of our trade receivables are with hospitals that are dependent upon governmental health care systems in many countries, repayment of such receivables is dependent upon the financial stabilityholders of the economiescontingent value rights issued in connection with that transaction. If, prior to March 1, 2019, sales of those countries. A deterioration of economic conditions in such countries may increase the average length of time it takes for us to collect on our outstanding accounts receivable in these countries or even our ability to collect such receivables.

In addition, if the European sovereign debt crisis continues or worsens, the value of the Euro could deteriorate or lead to the re-introduction of individual currencies in one or more Eurozone countries, or, in more extreme circumstances, the possible dissolution of the Euro currency entirely, all of which could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition in light of our substantial operations in and revenues derived from customers in the European Union. Should the Euro dissolve entirely, the legal and contractual consequences for holders of Euro denominated obligationsAUGMENT® Bone Graft reach $40 million over 12 consecutive months, a cash payment would be determinedrequired at $1.50 per share, or $42 million. Further, if, prior to March 1, 2019, sales of AUGMENT® Bone Graft reach $70 million over 12 consecutive months, an additional cash payment would be required at $1.50 per share, or $42 million. Therefore, even if we achieve significant sales of AUGMENT® Bone Graft, cash proceeds from these sales will be offset in part by laws in effect at such time. These potential developments, or market perceptions concerning these and related issues, could adversely affect the value of our Euro denominated assets andmilestone payment obligations. In addition, concerns over the effect of this financial crisis on financial institutions in Europe and globally could lead


We are subject to tightening of the credit and financial markets, which could negatively impact the ability of companies to borrow money from their existing lenders, obtain credit from other sources or raise financing to fund their operations. This could negatively impact our customers’ ability to purchase our products, our suppliers’ ability to provide us with materials and components and our ability, if needed, to finance our operations on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. We believesubstantial government regulation that European governmental austerity policies have reduced and may continue to reduce the amount of money available to purchase medical products, including our products. These austerity measures could negatively impact overall procedure volumes and result in increased pricing pressure for our products and the products of our competitors. Any or all of these events, as well as any additional austerity measures that may be taken which, among other things, could result in decreased utilization, pricing and reimbursement, could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition.

Weakness in the global economy is likely to adversely affect our business until an economic recovery is underway.

Many of our products are used in procedures covered by private insurance, and some of these procedures may be considered elective. We believe that weakness in the global economy may reduce the availability or affordability of private insurance or may affect patient decisions to undergo elective procedures. If current economic conditions do not continue to recover or worsen, we expect that increasing levels of unemployment and pressures to contain healthcare costs could adversely affect the global growth rate of procedure volume, which could have a material adverse effect on our revenuebusiness.

The production and operating results.

Fluctuationsmarketing of our products and our ongoing research and development, pre-clinical testing, and clinical trial activities are subject to extensive regulation and review by numerous governmental authorities both in the United States and abroad. U.S. and foreign currency ratesregulations govern the testing, marketing, and registration of new medical devices, in addition to regulating manufacturing practices, reporting, labeling, relationships with healthcare professionals, and recordkeeping procedures. The regulatory process requires significant time, effort, and expenditures to bring our products to market, and we cannot be assured that any of our products will be approved. Our failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could result in declines ingovernmental authorities:

imposing fines and penalties on us;
preventing us from manufacturing or selling our reported revenueproducts;
bringing civil or criminal charges against us and earnings.

A substantial portionour officers and employees;

delaying the introduction of our revenue outsidenew products into the market;
recalling or seizing our products; or
withdrawing or denying approvals or clearances for our products.
Even if regulatory approval or clearance of a product is granted, this could result in limitations on the uses for which the product may be labeled and promoted. Further, for a marketed product, its manufacturer, such manufacturer’s suppliers, and manufacturing facilities are subject to periodic review and inspection. Subsequent discovery of problems with a product, manufacturer, or facility may result in restrictions on the product, manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the product from the market or other enforcement actions. Our products can only be marketed in accordance with their approved labeling. If we were to promote the use of our products in an “off-label” manner, we and our directors, officers and employees, would be subject to civil and criminal sanctions.
We are subject to various U.S. federal and state and foreign laws concerning healthcare fraud and abuse, including false claims laws, anti-kickback laws and physician self-referral laws. Violations of these laws can result in criminal and/or civil punishment, including fines, imprisonment and, in the United States, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs. Greater scrutiny of marketing practices in our industry has resulted in numerous government investigations by various government authorities and this industry-wide enforcement activity is expected to continue. If a governmental authority were to determine that we do not comply with these laws and regulations, then we and our directors, officers and employees could be subject to criminal and civil penalties, including exclusion from participation in U.S. federal healthcare reimbursement programs.
In order to market our devices in the member countries of the European Union, we are required to comply with the European Medical Devices Directive and obtain CE mark certification. CE mark certification is the European symbol of adherence to quality assurance standards and compliance with applicable European Medical Device Directives. Under the European Medical Devices Directive, all medical devices including active implants must qualify for CE marking. Our failure to comply with the European Medical Devices Directive could result in our loss of CE mark certification which would harm our business.
Although legacy Wright divested the hip/knee (OrthoRecon) business, legacy Wright remains responsible, as between it and MicroPort, for liability claims on OrthoRecon products sold prior to closing, and might still be sued on products sold after closing.
Although OrthoRecon product liability expenses are accounted for under our discontinued operations, the agreement between Wright Medical Group, Inc. (WMG) and MicroPort requires that legacy Wright, as between it and MicroPort, retain responsibility for product liability claims on OrthoRecon products sold prior to closing, and for any resulting settlements, judgments, or other costs. Moreover, even though MicroPort, as between it and legacy Wright, is responsible for liability claims on post-closing sales, there can be no assurance we will not be named as a defendant in a lawsuit relating to such post-closing sales, or that MicroPort will have adequate resources to exonerate legacy Wright from any resulting expenses or liabilities.
We may never realize the expected benefits from the Wright/Tornier merger, the divestiture of the OrthoRecon business, and our strategy to become a profitable, high-growth, pure-play medical technology company, and command the market valuation typically accorded such companies.
The Wright/Tornier merger and the divestiture of the OrthoRecon business are part of our strategy to transform ourselves into a profitable, high-growth, pure-play medical technology company, and command the market valuation typically accorded such companies. If we are unable to achieve our growth and profitability objectives due to competition, lack of acceptance of our products, failure to gain regulatory approvals, or other risks as described in this section or other sections of this report, or due to other events, we will not be successful in transforming our business and will not be accorded the market valuation we seek. Moreover, the OrthoRecon business generated substantial revenue and cash flow, which we have not replaced. While over time we expect to replace the OrthoRecon revenue and cash flow by accelerating higher margin revenue streams from extremities and biologic products, especially in Europelight of the Wright/Tornier merger, there is still a risk we will be unable to replace the revenue

and cash flow that the OrthoRecon business generated, or that the cost of such will be higher than expected. If we are unable to achieve our profit and growth objectives, such failure will be exacerbated by the loss of revenue and cash flow generated by the OrthoRecon business, and could result in a decline in our stock price.
We may never realize the expected benefits of our strategic business combinations or acquisition transactions.
In addition to developing new products and growing our business internally, we have sought to grow through business combinations and acquisitions of complementary businesses. Examples include, in addition to the Wright/Tornier merger, legacy Wright's acquisition of BioMimetic in early 2013, as well as its more recent acquisitions of Biotech International in November 2013, Solana Surgical, LLC (Solana) in January 2014, and OrthoPro, L.L.C. (OrthoPro) in February 2014, and legacy Tornier’s acquisition of OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc. in 2012. Business combinations and acquiring new businesses involve a myriad of risks. Whenever new businesses are combined or acquired, there is a risk we may fail to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of the transaction. This can occur if integration of the businesses proves to be more complicated than planned, resulting in failure to realize operational synergies and/or failure to mitigate operational dis-synergies, diversion of management attention, and loss of key personnel. It can also occur if the combined or acquired business fails to meet our net sales projections, exposes us to unexpected liabilities, or if our pre-acquisition due diligence fails to uncover issues that negatively affect the value or cost structure of the acquired enterprise. Although we carefully plan our business combinations and acquisitions, there can be no assurances that these and other countriesrisks will not prevent us from realizing the expected benefits of these transactions.
Product liability lawsuits could harm our business and adversely affect our operating results or results from discontinued operations and financial condition if adverse outcomes exceed our product liability insurance coverage.
The manufacture and sale of medical devices expose us to significant risk of product liability claims. We are currently defendants in Latin Americaa number of product liability matters, including those relating to the OrthoRecon business, which legacy Wright divested to MicroPort in 2014. Legacy Wright remains responsible, as between it and AsiaMicroPort, for claims associated with products sold before divesting the OrthoRecon business to MicroPort.
We have been named as a defendant, in some cases with multiple other defendants, in lawsuits in which it is alleged that as yet unspecified defects in the design, manufacture, or labeling of certain metal-on-metal hip replacement products rendered the products defective. The pre-trial management of certain of these claims has been consolidated in the federal court system, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under multi-district litigation and certain other claims by the Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings in state court in Los Angeles County, California. As of December 25, 2016, there were approximately 1,200 lawsuits pending in the multi-district federal court proceeding and consolidated California state court proceeding, and an additional 30 cases pending in various state courts. As of that date, we have also entered into approximately 950 so called "tolling agreements" with potential claimants who have not yet filed suit. As of December 25, 2016, there were also approximately 50 non-U.S. lawsuits presently pending. We believe we have data that supports the efficacy and safety of the metal-on-metal hip replacement systems, and have been vigorously defending these cases.
While continuing to dispute liability, on November 1, 2016, WMT entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the MDL and JCCP. Under the terms of the MSA, the parties agreed to settle 1,292 specifically identified claims associated with CONSERVE®, DYNASTY® and LINEAGE® products that meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or subject to court-approved tolling agreements in the MDL or JCCP, for a settlement amount of $240 million.
Claims for personal injury have also been made against us associated with fractures of legacy Wright's PROFEMUR® long titanium modular neck product. We believe that the overall fracture rate for the product is low and the fractures appear, at least in part, to relate to patient demographics, and have been vigorously defending these matters. While continuing to dispute liability, we have been open to settling these claims in circumstances where we believe the amounts are denominatedsettlement amount is reasonable relative to the risk and expense of litigation.
Our material product liability litigation is discussed in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. For purposes of preparingNote 16 to our consolidated financial statements these amountsin "Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" of this report. These matters are converted into U.S. dollars, the value of which varies with currency exchange rate fluctuations. For revenuesubject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not denominated in U.S. dollars, if there is an increase in the valuepredictable. Regardless of the U.S. dollar relativeoutcome of these matters, legal defenses are costly. We have incurred and expect to continue to incur substantial legal expenses in connection with the specified foreign currency, we will receive less in U.S. dollars than before the increase in the exchange rate, whichdefense of these matters. We could negatively impact our operating results. Although we address currency risk management through regular operating and financing activities, and more recently through hedging activities, those actions may not prove to be fully effective, and hedging activities involve additional risks.

Our business plan relies on assumptions about the market forincur significant liabilities associated with adverse outcomes that exceed our products liability insurance coverage, which if incorrect, maycould adversely affect our revenue.

We believe thatoperating results or results from discontinued operations and financial condition. The ultimate cost to us with respect to product liability claims could be materially different than the agingamount of the general populationcurrent estimates and increasingly active lifestylesaccruals and expectations regarding “quality of life” will continuecould have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or results from discontinued operations, and that these trends will increasecash flows.

In the need for our products.future, we may be subject to additional product liability claims. We also believe that if clinical outcomes are improved ascould experience a result of extremity procedures over alternative treatmentsmaterial design or no treatment, awareness regarding such extremity procedures will increase, more surgeons will recommend extremity procedures and more patients will elect to undergo them as opposed to alternative treatments or no treatment. Since most ofmanufacturing failure in our products, are designed specifically for extremities and

early intervention, we believe the market for our extremities products in particular will continue to grow. The actual demand for our products, however, could differ materially from our projected demand if our assumptions regarding these trends and acceptance of our products by the medical community prove to be incorrecta quality system failure, other safety issues, or do not materialize, or if non-surgical treatments gain more widespread acceptance asheightened regulatory scrutiny that would warrant a viable alternative to our orthopaedic implants. If this occurs, our revenue and other operating results could be adversely affected.

Our upper extremity joints and trauma products, including in particular our shoulder products, generate a significant portion of our revenue. Accordingly, if revenue of these products were to decline, our operating results would be adversely affected.

Our upper extremity joints and trauma products, which includes joint implants and bone fixation devices for the shoulder, hand, wrist and elbow, generate a significant portion of our revenue. During 2013 and 2012, our upper extremity joints and trauma products generated approximately 59% and 63% of our revenue, respectively. We expect the shoulder to continue to be the largest and most important product category for us for the foreseeable future. In particular, we anticipate that our upper extremity joints and trauma product revenue will be favorably impacted in future periods as a result of the third quarter of 2013 launch of our Aequalis Ascend Flex. However, our expectations may prove to be incorrect and it is possible that the market acceptance of the Aequalis Ascend Flex will not meet our expectations or may have the effect of negatively impacting sales of our other shoulder products. A decline in our upper extremity joints and trauma product revenue as a result of lack of market acceptance of new products, the effect of new products on sales of existing products, increased competition, regulatory matters, intellectual property matters or any other reason would negatively impact our operating results.

We obtain some of our products through private-label distribution agreements that subject us to minimum performance and other criteria. Our failure to satisfy those criteria could cause us to lose those rights of distribution.

We have entered into private-label distribution agreements with manufacturersrecall of some of our products. These manufacturers brandProduct liability lawsuits and claims, safety alerts and product recalls, regardless of their ultimate outcome, could result in decreased demand for our products, accordinginjury to our specifications,reputation, significant litigation and we mayother costs, substantial


monetary awards to or costly settlements with patients, product recalls, loss of revenue, and the inability to commercialize new products or product candidates, and otherwise have exclusive rights in certain fields of usea material adverse effect on our business and territoriesreputation and on our ability to sell these products subjectattract and retain customers.
Our agreement to minimum purchase, sales or other performance criteria. Though these agreements do not individually or in the aggregate representsettle a materialsubstantial portion of our business, if wemetal-on-metal hip litigation claims is limited to approximately 1,292 qualifying revision claims and will leave a substantial number of metal-on-metal hip claims unresolved.
On November 1, 2016, our subsidiary Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (WMT) entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the previously disclosed metal-on-metal hip litigation known as In Re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc., CONSERVE® Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2329 (MDL) and In re: Wright Hip System Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4710 (JCCP). Under the terms of the MSA, the parties agreed, without admission of fault, to settle 1,292 specifically identified CONSERVE, DYNASTY or LINEAGE revision claims which meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or are subject to tolling agreements approved in the MDL or JCCP, for a total settlement amount of $240 million. While the minimum opt-in requirement for the MSA has been satisfied, the final MSA settlement amount (not to exceed $240 million), and the final number of claims settled under the MSA, will depend on, among other things, the mix of products implanted in the settling claimant group. Claims which do not meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA, new claims, and claims which have opted-out of the settlement will not be settled under the MSA. We will continue to defend these performance criteria,claims, and the previously disclosed risks, uncertainties and contingencies associated with these claims will remain unresolved. As of December 25, 2016, we estimate there were approximately 630 existing revision claims that are ineligible to participate in the MSA. For additional information regarding the MSA, see Note 16to our consolidated financial statements.
Our agreement with three insurance carriers to settle pending coverage litigation includes broad releases of coverage for present and future claims of personal injury alleged to be caused by metal-on-metal hip components or failthe release of metal ions, which could result in inadequate insurance coverage to renewdefend and resolve these agreements,claims. In addition, our settlement with the three carriers does not resolve previously disclosed disputes with the remaining carriers concerning the extent of coverage available for metal-on-metal hip claims.
On October 28, 2016, our WMT and WMG subsidiaries entered into a Settlement Agreement with a subgroup of three insurance carriers, Columbia Casualty Company, St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company and AXIS Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Three Settling Insurers), pursuant to which the Three Settling Insurers paid $60 million (in addition to $10 million previously paid) in full settlement of all potential liability of the Three Settling Insurers for metal ion and metal-on-metal hip claims, including but not limited to all claims in the MDL and the JCCP. As part of the settlement, the Three Settling Insurers repurchased their policies in the five policy years beginning with the 2007-2008 policy year. Consequently, we have no further coverage from the Three Settling Insurers for present or future metal-on-metal or metal ion claims falling in these five policy periods, or any other period in which a specifically released claim is asserted.
Our existing product liability insurance coverage may lose exclusivitybe inadequate to protect us from any liabilities we might incur.
If the product liability claims brought against us involve uninsured liabilities or result in a fieldliabilities that exceed our insurance coverage, our business, financial condition, and operating results could be materially and adversely affected. Further, such product liability matters may negatively impact our ability to obtain insurance coverage or cost-effective insurance coverage in future periods. We remain in litigation with certain insurance carriers other than the Three Settling Insurers, concerning the amount of usecoverage available to satisfy potential liabilities associated with the metal-on-metal hip claims against us. An unfavorable outcome in this litigation could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results from discontinued operations if we ultimately are subject to liabilities associated with these claims that exceed coverage amounts not in dispute.
In addition, on September 29, 2015, we received notice that the third insurance carrier in the tower for product liability insurance coverage relating to personal injury claims associated with fractures of legacy Wright's PROFEMUR® long titanium modular neck product (Modular Neck Claims) has asserted that the terms and conditions identified in its reservation of rights will preclude coverage for the Modular Neck Claims. We strongly dispute the carrier’s position and, in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of the policy, have initiated an arbitration proceeding in London, England seeking payment of these funds. We continue to believe our contracts with our insurance carriers are enforceable for these claims; however, we would be responsible for any amounts that our insurance carriers do not cover or territory or ceasefor the amount by which ultimate losses exceed the amount of our third-party insurance coverage. An unfavorable outcome in this matter could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results from discontinued operations if we ultimately are subject to liabilities associated with these claims that exceed coverage amounts not in dispute.
MicroPort’s recall of certain sizes of its cobalt chrome modular neck devices due to alleged fractures could result in additional product liability claims against us. Although we have any rightscontested these claims, adverse outcomes could harm our business and adversely affect our results from discontinued operations and financial condition.

In August 2015, MicroPort announced the voluntary recall of certain sizes of its PROFEMUR® Long Cobalt Chrome Modular Neck devices manufactured from June 15, 2009 to July 22, 2015. Because MicroPort did not acquire the OrthoRecon business until January 2014, many of the recalled devices were sold by legacy Wright prior to the acquisition by MicroPort. Under the asset purchase agreement with MicroPort, legacy Wright retained responsibility, as between it and MicroPort, for claims for personal injury relating to sales of these products prior to the acquisition. We were not consulted by MicroPort in connection with its recall, and we presently are aware of only eight lawsuits alleging personal injury related to cobalt chrome neck fractures (three in the United States and five outside the United States). However, if the number of product liability claims alleging personal injury from fractures of cobalt chrome modular necks we sold prior to the MicroPort transaction were to become significant, this could have an adverse effect on our results from discontinued operations and financial condition.
A competitor’s recall of its modular hip systems, and the liability claims and adverse publicity which ensued, could generate copycat claims against modular hip systems legacy Wright sold.
On July 6, 2012, Stryker Corporation announced the voluntary recall of its Rejuvenate Modular and ABG II modular neck hip stems citing risks including the potential for fretting and/or corrosion at or about the modular neck junction. Although Stryker’s recalled modular neck hip stems differ in design and material from the PROFEMUR® modular neck systems legacy Wright sold before divestiture of the OrthoRecon business, we have previously noted the risk that Stryker’s recall and the resultant publicity could negatively impact sales of modular neck systems of other manufacturers, including the PROFEMUR® system, and that Stryker’s action has increased industry focus on the safety of cobalt chrome modular neck products. We have carefully monitored the clinical performance of the PROFEMUR® modular neck hip system, which combine a cobalt chrome modular neck and a titanium stem. With over 33,000 units sold since this version was introduced in 2009, and an extremely low complaint rate, we remain confident in the safety and efficacy of this product. Nevertheless, in light of Stryker’s recall, the resulting product liability claims to which it has been subject, and the general negative publicity surrounding “metal-on-metal” articulating surfaces (which do not involve modular hip stems), there remains a risk that, even in the absence of clinical evidence, claims for personal injury relating to sales of these products before divestiture of the OrthoRecon business could increase, which could have an adverse effect on our revenue. Furthermore, some of these manufacturers may be smaller, undercapitalized companies that may not have sufficient resources to continue operations or to continue to supply us sufficient product without additional access to capital.

If our private-label manufacturers fail to provide us with sufficient supply of their products, or if their supply fails to meet appropriate quality requirements, our business could suffer.

Our private-label manufacturers are sole source suppliers of the products we purchase from them. Given the specialized nature of the products they provide, we may not be able to locate or establish additional or replacement manufacturers of these products. Moreover, these private-label manufacturers typically own the intellectual property associated with their products, and even if we could find a replacement manufacturer for the product, we may not have sufficient rights to enable the replacement party to manufacture the product. While we have entered into agreements with our private-label manufacturers that we believe will provide us sufficient quantities of products, we cannot assure you that they will do so, or that any products they do provide us will not contain defects in quality. Our private-label manufacturing agreements have terms expiring between this year and 2015 and are renewable under certain conditions or by mutual agreement. The agreements also include some or all of the following provisions allowing for termination under certain circumstances: (i) either party’s uncured material breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement; (ii) either party filing for bankruptcy, being bankrupt or becoming insolvent, suspending payments, dissolving or ceasing commercial activity; (iii) our inability to meet market development milestones and ongoing sales targets; (iv) termination without cause, provided that payments are made to the distributor; (v) a merger or acquisition of one of the parties by a third party; (vi) the enactment of a government law or regulation that restricts either party’s right to terminate or renew the contract or invalidates any provision of the agreement or (vii) the occurrence of a “force majeure,” including natural disaster, explosion or war.

We also rely on these private-label manufacturers to comply with the regulations of the FDA, the competent authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area, or EEA, or foreign regulatory authorities and their failure to comply with strictly enforced regulatory requirements could expose us to regulatory action including warning letters, product recalls, termination of distribution, product seizures or civil penalties. Any quality control problems that we experience with respect to products manufactured by our private-label manufacturers, any inability by us to provide our customers with sufficient supply of products or any investigations or enforcement actions by the FDA, the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA or other foreign regulatory authorities could adversely affect our reputation or commercialization of our products and adversely and materially affect our business and operating results.

We intend to continue to bring in-house the manufacturing of certain of our products that are currently manufactured by third parties. Should we encounter difficulties in manufacturing these or other products, it could adversely affect our business.

We intend to continue our initiative to bring in-house the manufacturing of certain of our products, including in particular our Aequalis Ascend and Simpliciti shoulder products. The technology and the manufacturing process for our shoulder products is highly complex, involving a large number of unique parts, and we may encounter difficulties in manufacturing these products in-house. There is no assurance that we will be able to meet the volume and quality requirements associated with our shoulder products. In addition, other products that we choose to bring in-house could encounter similar difficulties. Manufacturing and product quality issues may also arise as we increase the scale of our production. If our products do not consistently meet our customers’ performance expectations, our reputation may be harmed, and we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to become profitable. Any delay or inability in bringing in-house the manufacturing of our products could diminish our ability to sell our products, which could result in lost revenue and seriously harm our business, financial condition and results from discontinued operations since legacy Wright retained responsibility, as between it and MicroPort, for these claims.

Although we believe the use of corporate entities in our corporate structure will preclude creditors of any one particular entity within our corporate structure from reaching the assets of the other entities within our corporate structure not liable for the underlying claims of the one particular entity, there is a risk that, despite our corporate structure, creditors could be successful in piercing the corporate veil and reaching the assets of such other entities, which could have an adverse effect on us and our operating results.

results, results from discontinued operations, and financial condition.

We maintain separate legal entities within our overall corporate structure. We believe our ring-fenced structure with separate legal entities should preclude any corporate veil-piercing, alter ego, control person, or other similar claims by creditors of any one particular entity within our corporate structure from reaching the assets of the other entities within our corporate structure to satisfy claims of the one particular entity. However, if a court were to disagree and allow a creditor to pierce the corporate veil and reach the assets of such other entities within our corporate structure, despite such entities not being liable for the underlying claims, it could have a material adverse effect on us and our operating results, results from discontinued operations, and financial condition.
Failure to comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or other anticorruption laws could subject us to, among other things, penalties and legal expenses that could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial conditioncondition.
Our international operations expose us to legal and operating results.

regulatory risks. These risks include the risk that our international distributors could engage in conduct violative of U.S. or local laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Our U.S. operations, including those of our U.S. operating subsidiaries, Tornier, Inc. and OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc., are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. We are required to comply with the FCPA, which generally prohibits covered entities and their intermediaries from engaging in bribery or making other prohibited payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or other benefits. In addition, the FCPA imposes accounting standards and requirements on publicly tradedpublicly-traded U.S. corporations and their foreign affiliates, which are intended to prevent the diversion of corporate funds to the payment of bribes and other improper payments, and to prevent the establishment of “off books” slush funds from which such improper payments can be made. We also are subject to similar anticorruptionanti-corruption legislation implemented in Europe under the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. We either operate or plan to operate in a number of jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential violations of the FCPA and other anticorruptionanti-corruption laws, such as China and Brazil, and we utilize a number of third-party sales representatives for whose actions we could be held liable under the FCPA. We inform our personnel and third-party sales representatives of the requirements of the FCPA and other anticorruptionanti-corruption laws, including, but not limited to their reporting requirements. We also have developed and will continue to develop and implement systems for formalizing contracting processes, performing due diligence on agents, and improving our recordkeeping and auditing practices regarding these regulations. However, there is no guarantee that our employees, third-party sales representatives, or other agents have not or will not engage in conduct undetected by our processes and for which we might be held responsible under the FCPA or other anticorruptionanti-corruption laws.

Failure to comply with the FCPA or other anti-


corruption laws could subject us to, among other things, penalties and legal expenses that could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and operating results.
If our employees, third-party sales representatives, or other agents are found to have engaged in such practices, we could suffer severe penalties, including criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement, and other remedial measures, including further changes or enhancements to our procedures, policies and controls, as well as potential personnel changes and disciplinary actions. During the past few years,Recent investigations of companies in our industry by the SEC has increased its enforcementand the U.S. Department of Justice have focused on potential FCPA violations in connection with the sale of the FCPA against companies, including several medical device companies. Although we do notdevices in foreign countries. We believe we have compliance systems, which enable us to prevent these behaviors. However, if despite our efforts we are currently anot successful in mitigating these risks, we could become the target anyof enforcement actions by U.S. or local authorities. Any investigation of any potential violations of the FCPA or other anticorruptionanti-corruption laws by U.S. or foreign authorities also could have ana material adverse impacteffect on our business, operating results, and financial condition and operating results.

condition.

Certain foreign companies, including some of our competitors, are not subject to prohibitions as strict as those under the FCPA or, even if subjected to strict prohibitions, such prohibitions may be laxly enforced in practice. If our competitors engage in corruption, extortion, bribery, pay-offs, theft, or other fraudulent practices, they may receive preferential treatment from personnel of some companies, giving our competitors an advantage in securing business, or from government officials, who might give them priority in obtaining new licenses, which would put us at a disadvantage.

A significant portion of our product sales are made through independent distributors and sales agents who we do not control.
A significant portion of our product sales are made through independent sales representatives and distributors. Because the independent distributor often controls the customer relationships within its territory (and, in certain countries outside the United States, the regulatory relationship), there is a risk that if our relationship with the distributor ends, our relationship with the customer will be lost (and, in certain countries outside the United States, that we could experience delays in amending or transferring our product registrations). Also, because we do not control a distributor’s field sales agents, there is a risk we will be unable to ensure that our sales processes, compliance, and other priorities will be consistently communicated and executed by the distributor. If we fail to maintain relationships with our key distributors, or fail to ensure that our distributors adhere to our sales processes, compliance, and other priorities, this could have an adverse effect on our operations. In the past, we have experienced turnover within our independent distributor organization. This adversely affected our short-term financial results as we transitioned to direct sales employees or new independent representatives. In addition, prior to the merger, legacy Tornier transitioned to direct selling models in certain geographies and transitioned its U.S. sales channel towards focusing separately on upper and lower extremities products. While we believe these transitions were managed effectively and position us to leverage our sales force and broad product portfolio, there is a risk that these or future transitions could have a greater adverse effect on our operations than we have previously experienced or anticipate. Further, the legacy independent distributors and sales agents of Wright and Tornier may decide not to renew or may decide to seek to terminate, change and/or renegotiate their relationships with us. A loss of a significant number of our distributors or agents could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
In addition, our success is partially dependent upon our ability to retain and motivate our distributors, independent sales agencies, and their representatives to sell our products in certain territories. They may not be successful in implementing our marketing plans. Some of our distributors and independent sales agencies do not sell our products exclusively and may offer similar products from other orthopaedic companies. Our distributors and independent sales agencies may terminate their contracts with us, may devote insufficient sales efforts to our products, or may focus their sales efforts on other products that produce greater commissions for them, which could have an adverse effect on our operations and operating results.
Allegations of wrongdoing by the United States Department of Justice and Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and related publicity could lead to further governmental investigations or actions by other third parties.
As a result of the allegations of wrongdoing made by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey and the publicity surrounding legacy Wright's settlement with the United States Department of Justice and OIG-HHS, and amendments to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement and Corporate Integrity Agreement, other governmental agencies, including state authorities, could conduct investigations or institute proceedings that are not precluded by the terms of settlements reflected in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement and the CIA. In August 2012, legacy Wright received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Tennessee requesting records and documentation relating to the PROFEMUR® series of hip replacement devices for the period from January 1, 2000 to August 2, 2012. These interactions with the authorities could increase our exposure to lawsuits by potential whistleblowers, including under the U.S. Federal False Claims Act, based on new theories or allegations arising from the allegations made by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey. The costs of defending or resolving any such investigations or proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating results and cash flows.
If we lose any existing or future intellectual property lawsuits, a court could require us to pay significant damages or prevent us from selling our products.

The medical device industry is litigious with respect to patents and other intellectual property rights. Companies in the medical device industry have used intellectual property litigation to gain a competitive advantage.
We are party to claims and lawsuits involving patents or other intellectual property. Legal proceedings, regardless of the outcome, could drain our financial resources and divert the time and effort of our management. If we lose one of these proceedings, a court, or a similar foreign governing body, could require us to pay significant damages to third parties, indemnify third parties from loss, require us to seek licenses from third parties, pay ongoing royalties, redesign our products, or prevent us from manufacturing, using or selling our products. In addition to being costly, protracted litigation to defend or prosecute our intellectual property rights could result in our customers or potential customers deferring or limiting their purchase or use of the affected products until resolution of the litigation.
If our patents and other intellectual property rights do not adequately protect our products, we may lose market share to our competitors and be unable to operate our business profitably.
We rely on patents, trade secrets, copyrights, know-how, trademarks, license agreements, and contractual provisions to establish our intellectual property rights and protect our products. These legal means, however, afford only limited protection and may not completely protect our rights. In addition, we cannot be assured that any of our pending patent applications will issue. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may deny or require a significant narrowing of the claims in its pending patent applications and the patents issuing from such applications. Any patents issuing from the pending patent applications may not provide us with significant commercial protection. We could incur substantial costs in proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. These proceedings could result in adverse decisions as to the priority of our inventions and the narrowing or invalidation of claims in issued patents. In addition, the laws of some of the countries in which our products are or may be sold may not protect our intellectual property to the same extent as U.S. laws or at all. We also may be unable to protect our rights in trade secrets and unpatented proprietary technology in these countries.
In addition, we hold licenses from third parties that are necessary to utilize certain technologies used in the design and manufacturing of some of our products. The loss of such licenses would prevent us from manufacturing, marketing, and selling these products, which could harm our business. If we, or the other parties from whom we would license intellectual property, fail to obtain and maintain adequate patent or other intellectual property protection for intellectual property used in our products, or if any protection is reduced or eliminated, others could use the intellectual property used in our products, resulting in harm to our competitive business position.
We seek to protect our trade secrets, know-how, and other unpatented proprietary technology, in part, with confidentiality agreements with our employees, independent distributors, and consultants. We cannot be assured, however, that the agreements will not be breached, adequate remedies for any breach would be available, or our trade secrets, know-how, and other unpatented proprietary technology will not otherwise become known to or independently developed by our competitors.
If we lose one of our key suppliers, we may be unable to meet customer orders for our products in a timely manner or within our budget.

budget, which could adversely affect our sales and operating results.

We userely on a limited number of suppliers for rawcertain of the components and materials and select components that we need to manufactureused in our products. These suppliers must provide the materialsOur reconstructive joint devices are produced from various surgical grades of titanium, cobalt chrome, stainless steel, various grades of high-density polyethylenes and components to our standards for us to meet our quality and regulatory requirements.ceramics. We obtain some key raw materials and select components from a single source or a limited number of sources. For example, we rely on one supplier for raw materials and select components in several of our products, including Poco Graphite, Inc., which supplies graphite for our pyrocarbon products; CeramTec AG, or CeramTec, which supplies ceramic for ceramic heads for hips; and Heymark Metals Ltd., which supplies cobalt chrome used in certain of our hip, shoulder and elbow products. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for these components, and obtaining regulatory clearances

or approvals that may result from adding or replacing suppliers, could take a substantial amount of time, result in increased costs and impair our ability to produce our products, which would adversely impact our business and operating results. We do not have long-term or other supply contracts with our sole source suppliers and instead rely on purchase orders. As a result, those suppliers may elect not to supply us with product or to supply us with less product than we need, and we will have limited rights to cause them to do otherwise. In addition,a certain grade of cobalt chrome alloy, one supplier for the silicone elastomer used in some of our extremities products, which we acquire from third parties, are highly technical and are requiredone supplier for our pyrocarbon products, and one supplier to meet exacting specifications, and any quality control problems that we experience with respect to the products supplied by third parties could adversely and materially affect our reputation or commercializationprovide a key ingredient of AUGMENT® Bone Graft. The manufacture of our products is highly exacting and adverselycomplex, and materially affect our business operating resultscould suffer if a sole source supply arrangement is unexpectedly terminated or interrupted, and prospects. Furthermore, some of these suppliers are smaller companies. To the extent that any of these suppliers are, or become, undercapitalized and do not otherwise have sufficient resources to continue operations or to supply us sufficient product without additional access to capital, such a failure could adversely affect our business. We also may have difficulty obtaining similar components from other suppliers that are acceptable to the FDA, the competent authorities or notified bodies of the Member States of the EEA, or foreign regulatory authorities and the failure of our suppliers to comply with strictly enforced regulatory requirements could expose us to regulatory action including warning letters, product recalls, termination of distribution, product seizures or civil penalties. Furthermore, since many of these suppliers are located outside of the United States, we are subjectunable to foreign export lawsobtain an acceptable new source of supply in a timely fashion.

In April 2016, we entered into a commercial supply agreement with FUJIFILM Diosynth Biotechnologies U.S.A., Inc. pursuant to which Fujifilm agreed to manufacture and U.S. importsell to us and customs regulations,we agreed to purchase recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (rhPDGF-BB) for use in AUGMENT® Bone Graft. The agreement reflects the culmination of a technology transfer from our former supplier to Fujifilm which complicate and could delay shipmentsbegan in December 2013 when we were notified that our former supplier was exiting the rhPDGF-BB business. Pursuant to our supply agreement with Fujifilm, commercial production of componentsrhPDGF-BB is expected to us. For example, all foreign importersbegin in 2019. Although we believe that our current supply of medical devices are requiredrhPDGF-BB from our former supplier should be sufficient to meet applicable FDA requirements, including registration of establishment, listing of devices, manufacturing in accordance withlast until after rhPDGF-BB becomes available under the quality system regulation, medical device reporting of adverse events, and premarket notification 510(k) clearance or PMA, if applicable.new agreement, no assurance can be provided that it will be sufficient. In addition, all imported medical devices also must meet U.S. Customssince Fujifilm has not previously manufactured rhPDGF-BB, its ability to do so and Border Protection requirements. While it isperform its obligations under the agreement are not yet fully proven.
Our biologic product line includes a single sourced supplier for our policy to maintain sufficient inventoryGRAFTJACKET® family of materialssoft tissue repair and components so thatgraft containment products. In addition, certain biologic products depend upon a single supplier as our production will not be significantly disrupted even if a particular component or material is not availablesource for a period of time, we remain at risk that we will not be able to qualify new components or materials quickly enough to prevent a disruption if one or more of our suppliers ceases production of important components or materials.

Sales volumes may fluctuate depending on the seasondemineralized bone matrix (DBM) and our operating results may fluctuate over the course of the year.

Our business is somewhat seasonal in nature, as many of our products are used in elective procedures, which typically decline during the summer monthscancellous bone matrix (CBM), and can increase at the end of the year once annual deductibles have been met on health insurance plans. Additionally, elective procedures typically decline in certain parts of Europe during the third quarter of the year due to holiday and vacation schedules. We have experienced and expect to continue to experience meaningful variability in our revenue and gross profit among quarters, as well as within each quarter, as a result of a number of factors, including, among other things:

transitions to direct selling models in certain geographies and the transition of our U.S. sales channel towards focusing separately on upper and lower extremity products;

the number and mix of products sold in the quarter and the geographies in which they are sold;

the demand for, and pricing of, our products and the products of our competitors;

the timing of orany failure to obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for products

costs, benefitsDBM and timingCBM from this source in a timely manner will deplete levels of new product introductions;

the levelon-hand raw materials inventory and could interfere with our ability to process and distribute allograft products. We rely on a single not-for-profit tissue bank to meet all of competition;

the timingour DBM and extent of promotional pricing or volume discounts;CBM order requirements, a key component

changes in average selling prices;

the availability and cost of components and materials;

the number of selling days;

fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates;

the timing of patients’ use of their calendar year medical insurance deductibles; and

impairment and other special charges.

We may not achieve our financial guidance or projected goals and objectives in the time periodsallograft products we currently produce, market, and distribute. In addition, we rely on a single supplier of soft tissue graft for BIOTAPE® XM.

We cannot be sure that we anticipateour supply of DBM, CBM and soft tissue graft for BIOTAPE® XM will continue to be available at current levels or announce publicly, which could have an adverse effect onwill be sufficient to meet our businessneeds, or that future suppliers of DBM, CBM, and could cause the market price of our ordinary shares to decline.

On a quarterly basis, we typically provide projected financial information, such as our anticipated quarterly and annual revenues, adjusted earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation and net loss. These financial projections are based on management’s then current expectations and typically do not contain any significant margin of error or cushionsoft tissue graft for any specific uncertainties or for the uncertainties inherent in all financial forecasting. The failure to achieve our financial projections or the projections of analysts and investors could have an adverse effect on our business, disappoint analysts and investors and cause the market price of our ordinary shares to decline. Since our initial public offering, our revenue performance has been outside of our guidance range in certain quarters, including the third quarter of 2013, which negatively impacted the market price of our ordinary shares, and could do so in the future should our results fall below our guidance range and the expectations of analysts and investors.

We also set goals and objectives for, and make public statements regarding, the timing of certain accomplishments and milestones regarding our business, such as the timing of new products,BIOTAPE® XM will be free from FDA regulatory actions and anticipated distributor and sales representative transitions. The actual timing of these events can vary dramatically due to a number of factors including the risk factors described in this report. As a result, there can be no assurance that we will succeed in achieving our projected goals and objectives in the time periods that we anticipate or announce publicly. The failure to achieve such projected goals and objectives in the time periods that we anticipate or announce publicly could have an adverse effect on our business, disappoint investors and analysts and cause the market price of our ordinary shares to decline.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, our business may be harmed.

The manufacture andaction impacting their sale of orthopaedic medical devices exposes us to significant risk of product liability claims. In the past, we have hadDBM, CBM and soft tissue graft for BIOTAPE® XM. As there are a small number of product liability claims relatingsuppliers, if we cannot continue to obtain DBM, CBM, and soft tissue graft for BIOTAPE® XM from our products, none of which either individually, orcurrent sources in the aggregate, have resulted in a material negative impact onvolumes sufficient to meet our business. In the future, we may be subject to additional product liability claims, some of which may have a negative impact on our business. Such claims could divert our management from pursuing our business strategy and may be costly to defend. Regardless of the merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

decreased demand for our products;

injury to our reputation;

significant litigation and other costs;

substantial monetary awards to or costly settlements with patients;

product recalls;

loss of revenue; and

the inability to commercialize new products or product candidates.

Our existing product liability insurance coverage may be inadequate to protect us from any liabilities we might incur. If a product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of our insurance coverage, our business and operating results could suffer. In addition,needs, we may not be able to maintain insurance coveragelocate replacement sources of DBM, CBM, and soft tissue graft for BIOTAPE® XM on commercially reasonable terms, if at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts or scope to protect us against losses. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit,all. This could severely harminterrupt our financial condition, strain our management and other resources andbusiness, which could adversely affect our sales.

Suppliers of raw materials and components may decide, or eliminatebe required, for reasons beyond our control to cease supplying raw materials and components to us. FDA regulations may require additional testing of any raw materials or components from new suppliers prior to our use of these materials or components, and in the prospects for commercialization or salescase of a productdevice with a PMA application, we may be required to obtain prior FDA permission, either of which could delay or product candidate which is the subject of any such claim. In addition, a recall ofprevent our products, whether or not as a result of a product liability claim, could result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, significant litigation and other costs, substantial monetary awardsaccess to or costly settlements with patients, lossuse of revenuesuch raw materials or components.
We are dependent on various information technology systems, and our inabilityfailures of, interruptions to, commercialize new products or product candidates.

Our inability to maintain adequate working relationships with external research and development consultants and surgeons could have a negative impact on our ability to develop and sell new products.

We maintain professional working relationships with external research and development consultants and leading surgeons and medical personnel in hospitals and universities who assist in product research and development and training. We continue to emphasize the developmentunauthorized tampering of proprietary products and product improvements to complement and expand our existing product lines. It is possible that U.S. federal and state and international laws requiring us to disclose payments or other transfers of value, such as free gifts or meals, to physicians and other healthcare providers could have a chilling effect on these relationships with individuals or entities that may, among other things, want to avoid public scrutiny of their financial relationships with us. If we are unable to maintain these relationships, our ability to develop and sell new and improved products could decrease, and our future operating results could be unfavorably affected.

We incur significant expenditures of resources to maintain relatively high levels of inventory and instruments, which can reduce our cash flows.

As a result of the need to maintain substantial levels of inventory and instruments, we are subject to the risk of obsolescence. The nature of our business requires us to maintain a substantial level of inventory and instruments. For example, our total consolidated inventory balance was $87.0 million and $86.7 million at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively, and our total consolidated instrument balance was $63.1 million and $51.4 million at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively. In order to market effectively we often must maintain and bring our customers instrument kits, back-up products and products of different sizes. In the event that a substantial portion of our inventory becomes obsolete, itthose systems could have a material adverse effect on our earnings and cash flows duebusiness.

We rely extensively on information technology systems to the resulting costs associated

with inventory impairment charges and costs required to replace such inventory. The third quarter of 2013 launch of our Aequalis Ascend Flex convertible shoulder system could adversely affect demand for and sales of our other mature shoulder products, which could result in a higher level of excess and obsolete inventory charges or otherwise negatively impact our operating results and cash flows.

Our acquisition of OrthoHelix in October 2012 and any additional acquisitions and efforts to acquire and integrate other companies or product lines could adversely affect our operations and financial results.

During 2013, we acquired certain assets of our distributors in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom and established direct sales forces in such countries and acquired certain assets of some of our independent sales agencies in the United States and established direct sales forces in certain territories. During fourth quarter of 2012, we acquired OrthoHelix, a company focused on developing and marketing specialty implantable screw and plateconduct business. These systems for the repair of small bone fractures and deformities predominantly in the foot and ankle. In addition, we may pursue additional acquisitions of other distributors, companies or product lines. A successful acquisition depends on our ability to identify, negotiate, complete and integrate such acquisition and to obtain any necessary financing. With respect to these recent acquisitions and any future acquisitions, we may experience:

difficulties in integrating the acquired businesses and their respective personnel and products into our existing business;

difficulties in integrating commercial organizations, including in particular distribution and sales representative arrangements;

difficulties or delays in realizing the anticipated benefits of our recent acquisitions or any additional acquired companies and their products;

diversion of our management’s time and attention from other business concerns;

challenges due to limited or no direct prior experience in new markets or countries we may enter;

the potential loss of key employees, including in particular sales and research and development personnel;

the potential loss of key customers, distributors, representatives, vendors and other business partners who choose not to do business with our company post-acquisition;

inability to effectively coordinate sales and marketing efforts to communicate our capabilities post-acquisition and coordinate sales organizations to sell our combined products;

inability to successfully develop new products and services on a timely basis that address our new market opportunities post-acquisition;

inability to compete effectively against companies already serving the broader market opportunities expected to be available to us post-acquisition;

difficulties in the assimilation of different corporate cultures, practices and sales and distribution methodologies, as well as in the assimilation and retention of geographically dispersed, decentralized operations and personnel;

unanticipated costs, litigation and other contingent liabilities;

incurrence of acquisition and integration related costs, accounting charges, or amortization costs for acquired intangible assets;

potential write-down of goodwill, acquired intangible assets and/or deferred tax assets;

additional legal, financial and accounting challenges and complexities in areas such as intellectual property, tax planning, cash management and financial reporting and

any unforeseen compliance risks and accompanying financial and reputational exposure or loss not uncovered in the due diligence process and whichinclude, but are imputed to Tornier, such as compliance with federal laws and regulations, the advertising and promotion regulations under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Anti-kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, the Physician Sunshine Payments Act and other applicable laws.

In addition, we may have to incur debt or issue equity securities to pay for an acquisition, the issuance of which could involve restrictive covenants or be dilutive to our existing shareholders. Acquisitions also could materially impair our operating results by requiring us to amortize acquired assets. For example, as a result of our acquisition of OrthoHelix, we incurred additional indebtedness under two senior secured term loans, the proceeds of which were used to fund our acquisition of OrthoHelix and retire certain then existing indebtedness.

In addition, effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable and accurate financial reports and to effectively prevent fraud. The integration of acquired businesses is likely to result in our systems and controls becoming increasingly complex and more difficult to manage. We devote significant resources and time to comply with the internal control over financial reporting requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. However, we cannot be certain that these measures will ensure that we design, implement and maintain adequate control over our financial processes and reporting in the future, especially in the context of acquisitions of other businesses. Any difficulties in the assimilation of acquired

businesses into our control system could harm our operating results or cause us to fail to meet our financial reporting obligations. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock and our access to capital.

All of the risks described above may be exacerbated if we effect multiple acquisitions during a short period of time.

If we do not achieve the contemplated benefits of our acquisition of OrthoHelix, our business and financial condition may be materially impaired.

We may not achieve the desired benefits from our acquisition of OrthoHelix. For any of the reasons described above and elsewhere in this report and even if we are able to successfully operate OrthoHelix within our company, we may not be able to realize the revenue and other synergies and growth that we anticipate from the acquisition in the time frame that we currently expect, and the costs of achieving these benefits may be higher than what we currently expect, because of a number of risks, including, but not limited to:

the possibility that the acquisition may not further our business strategy as we expected;

the possibility that we may not be able to expand the reach and customer base for OrthoHelix’s products as expected;

the possibility that we may not be able to expand the reach and customer base for our products as expected; and

the fact that the acquisition will substantially expand our lower extremity joints and trauma business, and we may not experience anticipated growth in that market.

As a result of these risks, the OrthoHelix acquisition may not contribute to our earnings as expected, we may not achieve expected revenue synergies or our return on invested capital targets when expected, or at all, and we may not achieve the other anticipated strategic and financial benefits of the transaction. For example, some of these risks materialized during 2013. As part of our OrthoHelix integration initiative to establish separate U.S. sales channels that are individually focused on upper extremity products and lower extremity products, we terminated some of our existing sales relationships with certain distributors and independent sales agencies. Upon these terminations, we entered into agreements with existing distributors and sales agencies to take on the impacted products or territories, contracted with new distributors and sales agencies, hired direct sales representatives, or used a combination of these options. These terminations, changes and transitions have resulted and may continue to result in disruption in our U.S. sales channel, thereby adversely affecting our operations and operating results.

If we cannot attract and retain our key personnel, we may not be able to manage and operate successfully, and we may not be able to meet our strategic objectives.

Our future success depends, in large part, upon our ability to attract and retain and motivate our management team and key managerial, scientific, sales and technical personnel. Key personnel may depart because of difficulties with change or a desire not to remain with our company. Any unanticipated loss or interruption of services of our management team and our key personnel could significantly reduce our ability to meet our strategic objectives because it may not be possible for us to find appropriate replacement personnel should the need arise. In addition, we have hired and expect to continue to hire additional sales personnel, especially in territories where we have recently commenced direct sales operations. We compete for personnel with other companies, academic institutions, governmental entities and other organizations. There is no guarantee that we will be successful in retaining our current personnel or in hiring or retaining qualified personnel in the future. Loss of key personnel or the inability to hire or retain qualified personnel in the future could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate successfully. Further, any inability on our part to enforce non-compete arrangements related to key personnel who have left the company could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Fluctuations in insurance cost and availability could adversely affect our profitability or our risk management profile.

We hold a number of insurance policies, including product liability insurance, directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, property insurance and workers’ compensation insurance. If the costs of maintaining adequate insurance coverage should increase significantly in the future, our operating results could be materially adversely affected. Likewise, if any of our current insurance coverage should become unavailable to us or become economically impractical, we would be required to operate our business without indemnity from commercial insurance providers.

If a natural or man-made disaster, including as a result of climate change or weather, adversely affects our manufacturing facilities or distribution channels, we could be unable to manufacture or distribute our products for a substantial amount of time and our revenue could decline.

We principally rely on three manufacturing facilities, two of which are in France and one of which is in Ireland. The facilities and the manufacturing equipment we use to produce our products would be difficult to replace and could require substantial lead-time to repair or replace. For example, the machinery associated with our manufacturing of pyrocarbon in one of our French facilities is highly specialized and would take substantial lead-time and resources to replace. We also maintain a facility in Bloomington, Minnesota, and a warehouse in Montbonnot, France, both of which contain large amounts of our inventory. Our facilities, warehouses or distribution channels may be affected by natural or man-made disasters. Further, such may be exacerbated by climate change, as some scientists have concluded that climate change could result in the increased severity of and perhaps more frequent occurrence of extreme weather patterns. For example, in the event of a tornado at one of our warehouses, we may lose substantial amounts of inventory that would be difficult to replace. In the event our facilities, warehouses or distribution channels are affected by a disaster, we would be forced to rely on, among others, third-party manufacturers and alternative warehouse space and distribution channels, which may or may not be available, and our revenue could decline. Although we believe we possess adequate insurance for damage to our property and the disruption of our business from casualties, such insurance may not be sufficient to cover all of our potential losses and may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

We may be unable to raise capital when needed, which would force us to delay, reduce, eliminate or abandon our commercialization efforts or product development programs.

There is no guarantee that our anticipated cash flow from operations will be sufficient to meet all of our cash requirements. We intend to continue to make investments to support our business growth and may require additional funds to:

continue our research and development;

develop, obtain required regulatory approvals or clearances and commercialize new products;

make changes in our distribution channels;

defend, in litigation or otherwise, any claims that we infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property rights and enforce our patent and other intellectual property rights; and

acquire companies and in-license products or intellectual property.

We believe that our cash and cash equivalents balance of $56.8 million as of December 29, 2013, anticipated cash receipts generated from revenue of our products and available credit under our $30.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility, will be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash requirements for at least the next 12 months. However, our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including:

our future revenues and expenses;

required regulatory approval, commercial introduction and market acceptance of our products;

the scope, rate of progress and cost of our clinical trials;

the cost of our research and development activities;

the cost and timing of additional regulatory clearances or approvals;

the cost and timing of expanding our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities;

the cost and timing of our product offering inventories;

the cost of filing and prosecuting patent applications and defending and enforcing our patent and other intellectual property rights;

the cost of defending, in litigation or otherwise, any claims that we infringe third-party patent or other intellectual property rights;

the cost of defending any claims of product liability, or other claims against us, such as contract liabilities;

our ability to collect amounts receivable from customers;

the effect of competing technological and market developments; and

the extent to which we acquire or invest in additional businesses, products and technologies.

In the event that we would require additional working capital to fund future operations, we could seek to acquire that through additional equity or debt financing arrangements which may or may not be available on favorable terms at such time. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our shareholders may experience dilution. Debt financing, if available, may involve covenants restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt, in addition to those under our existing credit facilities. Any debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our shareholders. If we do not have, or are not able to obtain, sufficient funds, we may have to delay development or commercialization of our products or license to third parties the rights to commercialize products or technologies that we would otherwise seek to commercialize. We also may have to reduce marketing, customer support or other resources devoted to our products or cease operations.

Any lack of borrowing availability under our credit facility and our potential inability to obtain replacement sources of credit could materially affect our operations and financial condition.

Although we currently have available credit under our $30.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility, our ability to draw on our credit facility may be limited by outstanding letters of credit or by operating and financial covenants under our the credit agreement. There can be no assurances that we will continue to have access to credit if our operating and financial performance do not satisfy these covenants. If we do not satisfy these criteria, and if we are unable to secure necessary waivers or other amendments from the lenders of our credit facility, we will not have access to this credit.

Both the $30.0 million revolving credit facility and the $60.9 million term loan under our credit agreement as of December 29, 2013 are secured by all of our assets (subject to certain exceptions) and except to the extent otherwise permitted under the terms of our credit agreement, our assets cannot be pledged as security for other indebtedness. These limits on our ability to offer collateral to other sources of financing could limit our ability to obtain other financing which could materially affect our operations and financial condition.

Although we believe that our anticipated operating cash flows, on-hand cash levels and access to credit will give us the ability to meet our financing needs for at least the next 12 months, there can be no assurance that they will do so. Any lack of borrowing availability under our revolving credit facility and our potential inability to obtain replacement sources of credit could materially affect our operations and financial condition.

We are leveraged financially, which could adversely affect our ability to adjust our business to respond to competitive pressures and to obtain sufficient funds to satisfy our future research and development needs, to protect and enforce our intellectual property and other needs.

We have significant indebtedness. As of December 29, 2013, we had a senior secured term loan outstanding in the amount of $60.9 million, net of unamortized discount of $3.2 million. In addition, as of December 29, 2013, we have $30.0 million of credit availability under our senior secured revolving line of credit. The degree to which we are leveraged could have important consequences, including, but not limited to, the following:

our abilityordering and managing materials from suppliers, converting materials to utilize our existing available credit under our senior secured revolving linefinished products, shipping products to customers, processing transactions, summarizing and reporting results of creditoperations, complying with regulatory, legal or our ability to obtain additional financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, litigation, general corporate or other purposes may be limited;

a substantial portion of our cash flows from operations in the future will be dedicated to the payment of principaltax requirements, and interest on our indebtedness, including the requirement that certain excess cash flows and certain net proceeds of asset dispositions (including from condemnation or casualty) and certain new indebtedness be applied to prepayment of our senior secured terms loans; and

we may be more vulnerable to economic downturns, less able to withstand competitive pressures and less flexible in responding to changing business and economic conditions.

A failure to comply with the covenantsproviding data security and other provisionsprocesses necessary to manage our business. Since the merger and through the end of our credit agreement could result in events of default under such agreement, which could require the immediate repayment of our outstanding indebtedness. If we are at any time unable to generate sufficient cash flows from operations to service our indebtedness when payment is due, we may be required to attempt to renegotiate the terms of the agreements relating to the indebtedness, seek to refinance all or a portion of the indebtedness or obtain additional financing. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully renegotiate such terms, that any such refinancing would be possible or that any additional financing could be obtained on terms that are favorable or acceptable to us.

Our credit agreement contains restrictive covenants that may limit our operating flexibility.

The agreement relating to our senior secured term loan and senior secured revolving credit facility contains operating covenants limiting our ability to transfer or dispose of assets, merge with or acquire other companies, make investments, pay dividends, incur additional indebtedness and liens, make capital expenditures and conduct transactions with affiliates, and financial covenants requiring us to meet certain financial ratios. We, therefore, may not be able to engage in any of the foregoing transactions or in any that would cause us to breach these financial covenants until our current debt obligations are paid in full or we obtain the consent of the lenders. There is no guarantee that we will be able to generate sufficient cash flow or revenue to meet these operating and financial covenants or pay the principal and interest on our debt. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that future working capital, borrowings or equity financing will be available to repay or refinance any such debt.

As a result of our acquisition of OrthoHelix, we may be required to make future earn-out payments of up to an aggregate of $20.0 million based upon our sales of lower extremity joints and trauma products during fiscal years 2013 and 2014, which payments may affect our liquidity and our operating results.

In connection with our acquisition of OrthoHelix, we agreed to made additional earn-out payments of up to an aggregate of $20.0 million in cash based upon our sales of lower extremity joints and trauma products during 2013 and 2014. A portion of the earn-out payments are subject to certain rights of set-off for post-closing indemnification obligations of OrthoHelix’s equity holders. Based upon sales of lower extremity joints and trauma products during 2013, we may be required to make an earn-out payment in the amount of approximately $4.6 million. If we are required to make another payment based upon 2014 sales during 2015 and if at this time we are experiencing financial difficulty, our liquidity, operating results and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Our operating results could be negatively impacted by future changes in the allocation of income to each of the entities through which we operate and to each of the income tax jurisdictions in which we operate.

We operate through multiple entities and in multiple income tax jurisdictions with different income tax rates both inside and outside the United States and the Netherlands. Accordingly, our management must determine the appropriate allocation of income to each such entity and each of these jurisdictions. Income tax audits associated with the allocation of this income and other complex issues, including inventory transfer pricing and cost sharing and product royalty arrangements, may require an extended period of time to resolve and may result in income tax adjustments if changes to the income allocation are required. Since income tax adjustments in certain jurisdictions can be significant, our future operating results could be negatively impacted by settlement of these matters.

Future changes in technology or market conditions could result in adjustments to our recorded asset balance for intangible assets, including goodwill, resulting in additional charges that could significantly impact our operating results.

Our consolidated balance sheet includes significant intangible assets, including $251.5 million in goodwill and $117.6 million in other acquired intangible assets, together representing 52% of our total assets as of December 29, 2013. The determination of related estimated useful lives and whether these assets are impaired involves significant judgments. Our ability to accurately predict future cash flows related to these intangible assets may be adversely affected by unforeseen and uncontrollable events. In the highly competitive medical device industry, new technologies could impair the value of our intangible assets if they create market conditions that adversely affect the competitiveness of our products. We test our goodwill for impairment in the fourth quarter of each year, but we also test goodwill and other intangible assets for impairment at any time when there is a change in circumstances that indicates that the carrying value of these assets may be impaired. Any future determination that these assets are carried at greater than their fair value could result in substantial non-cash impairment charges, which could significantly impact our reported operating results.

If reimbursement from third-party payors for our products becomes inadequate, surgeons and patients may be reluctant to use our products and our revenue may decline.

In the United States, healthcare providers who purchase our products generally rely on third-party payors, principally federal Medicare, state Medicaid and private health insurance plans, to pay for all or a portion of the cost of joint reconstructive procedures and products utilized in those procedures. We may be unable to sell our products on a profitable basis if third-party payors deny coverage or reduce their current levels of reimbursement. Our revenue depends largely on governmental healthcare programs and private health insurers reimbursing patients’ medical expenses. As part of the Budget Control Act to extend the federal debt limit and reduce government spending, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts (known as sequestration) are scheduled to occur over the next decade. Half of the automatic reductions are to come from lowering the caps imposed on non-defense discretionary spending and cutting domestic entitlement programs, including aggregate reductions in payments to Medicare providers of up to 2% per fiscal year. Subsequent legislation reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressure.

To contain costs of new technologies, third-party payors are increasingly scrutinizing new treatment modalities by requiring extensive evidence of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Currently, we are aware of several private insurers who have issued policies that classify procedures using our Salto Talaris Prosthesis and Conical Subtalar Implants as experimental or investigational and denied coverage and reimbursement for such procedures. Surgeons, hospitals and other healthcare providers may not purchase our products if they do not receive satisfactory reimbursement from these third-party payors for the cost of the procedures using our products. Payors continue to review their coverage policies carefully for existing and new therapies and can, without notice, deny coverage for treatments that include the use of our products. If we are not successful in reversing existing non-coverage policies or other private insurers issue similar policies, this could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations.

In addition, some healthcare providers in the United States have adopted or are considering a managed care system in which the providers contract to provide comprehensive healthcare for a fixed cost per person. Healthcare providers may attempt to control costs by authorizing fewer elective surgical procedures, including joint reconstructive surgeries, or by requiring the use of the least expensive implant available. Changes in reimbursement policies or healthcare cost containment initiatives that limit or restrict reimbursement for our products may cause our revenue to decline.

If adequate levels of reimbursement from third-party payors outside of the United States are not obtained, international revenue of our products may decline. Outside of the United States, reimbursement systems vary significantly by country. Many foreign markets have government-managed healthcare systems that govern reimbursement for orthopaedic medical devices and procedures. Additionally, some foreign reimbursement systems provide for limited payments in a given period and therefore result in extended payment periods.

Consolidation in the healthcare industry could lead to demands for price concessions or to the exclusion of some suppliers from certain of our markets, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

Because healthcare costs have risen significantly over the past decade, numerous initiatives and reforms initiated by legislators, regulators and third-party payors to curb these costs have resulted in a consolidation trend in the healthcare industry to create new companies with greater market power, including hospitals. As the healthcare industry consolidates, competition to provide products and services to industry participants has become and will continue to become more intense. This in turn has resulted and likely will continue to result in greater pricing pressures and the exclusion of certain suppliers from important market segments as group purchasing organizations, independent delivery networks and large single accounts continue to use their market power to consolidate purchasing decisions for some of our customers. We expect that market demand, government regulation, third-party reimbursement policies and societal pressures will continue to change the worldwide healthcare industry, resulting in further business consolidations and alliances among our customers, which may reduce competition, exert further downward pressure on the prices of our products and may adversely impact our business, financial condition or operating results.

If we experience significant disruptions in our information technology systems, our business may be adversely affected.

We depend on our information technology systems for the efficient functioning of our business, including accounting, data storage, purchasing and inventory management. Currently,2016, we have a non-interconnected information technology system; however, in 2013, we began implementing a newconsolidated into one enterprise resource planning (ERP) system (ERP) acrossin three of our significant operating locations.top five international markets, and we plan to continue our ERP system roll-outs during 2017. We expect that the ERP will take two to three years to implement; however, when complete it should enable management to better and more efficiently conduct our operations and gather, analyze, and assess business information. The ERP will require the investment of significant human and financial resources. As a result of the implementation, we may experience difficulties in our business operations, or difficulties in operating our business under the ERP, either of which could disrupt our operations, including our ability to timely ship and track product orders, project inventory requirements, manage our supply chain, and otherwise adequately service our customers, and lead to increased costs and other difficulties. In the event we experience significant disruptions as a result of the ERP implementation or otherwise, we may not be able to fix our systems in an efficient and timely manner. Accordingly, such events may disrupt or reduce the efficiency of our entire operationoperations and have a material adverse effect on our operating results and cash flows.

Risks Related In addition, if our systems are damaged or cease to Regulatory Environment

The salefunction properly due to any number of causes, ranging from catastrophic events to power outages to security breaches, and our business continuity plans do not effectively compensate timely, we may suffer interruptions in our ability to manage operations.

Fluctuations in insurance cost and availability could adversely affect our profitability or our risk management profile.
We hold a number of insurance policies, including product liability insurance, directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, property insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance. If the costs of maintaining adequate insurance coverage should increase significantly in the future, our operating results could be materially adversely impacted. Likewise, if any of our products is subjectcurrent insurance coverage should become unavailable to us or become economically impractical, we would be required to operate our business without indemnity from commercial insurance providers.
Modifications to our marketed devices may require FDA regulatory clearances or approvals and our business is subject to extensive regulatory requirements. If we fail to maintain regulatory clearances and approvals, or are unable to obtain, or experience significant delays in obtaining, FDA clearances or approvals for our future products or product enhancements, our ability to commercially distribute and market these products could suffer.

Our medical device products and operations are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and various other federal, state and foreign governmental authorities. Government regulation of medical devices is meant to assure their safety and effectiveness, and includes regulation of, among other things:

design, development and manufacturing;

testing, labeling, packaging, content and language of instructions for use, and storage;

clinical trials;

product safety;

premarket clearance and approval;

marketing, sales and distribution (including making product claims);

advertising and promotion;

product modifications;

recordkeeping procedures;

recalls and field corrective actions;

post-market surveillance, including reporting of deaths or serious injuries and malfunctions that, if they were to recur, could lead to death or serious injury; and

product import and export.

Before a new medical device, or a new use of, or claim for, an existing product can be marketed in the United States, it must first receive either premarket clearance under Section 510(k) of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, a de novo approval or a PMA, from the FDA, unless an exemption applies. In the 510(k) clearance process, the FDA must determine that the proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a device legally on the market, known as a “predicate” device. To establish substantial equivalence which allows the device to be marketed, the applicant must demonstrate the device has the: (i) the same intended use; (ii) the same technological characteristics; and (iii) to the extent the technological characteristic are different, that they do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness. Clinical data is sometimes required to support substantial equivalence, but FDA’s expectations for data are often unclear and do change. Another procedure for obtaining marketing authorization for a medical device is the “de novo classification” procedure, pursuant to which FDA may authorize the marketing of a moderate to low risk device that has no predicate. These submissions typically require more information (i.e. non-clinical and/or clinical performance data) and take longer than a 510(k), but require less data and a shorter time period than a PMA approval. If the FDA grants the de novo request, the device is permitted to enter commercial distribution in the same manner as if 510(k) clearance had been granted, and the device becomes a 510(k) predicate for future devices seeking to call it a “predicate.” The PMA pathway requires an applicant to demonstrate reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use based, in part, on extensive data including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data. The PMA process is typically required for devices that are deemed to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices. Products that are approved through a PMA application generally need FDA approval before they can be modified. Similarly, some modifications made to products cleared through a 510(k) may require a new 510(k) or a PMA. The 510(k), de novo and PMA processes can be expensive, lengthy and sometimes unpredictable. The processes also entail significant user fees, unless exempt. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from six to 18 months, but may take longer if more data are needed. The de novo process can take one to two years or longer if additional data are needed. The PMA pathway is much more costly and uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process and it generally takes from one to five years, or even longer, from the time the application is filed with the FDA until an approval is obtained. The process of obtaining regulatory clearances or approvals to market a medical device can be costly and time-consuming, and we may not be able to obtain these clearances or approvals on a timely basis, if at all.

Most of our currently commercialized products have received premarket clearances under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. If the FDA requires us to go through a lengthier, more rigorous examination for future products or modifications to existing products than we had expected, our product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could cause our revenue to decline. In addition, the FDA may determine that future products will require the more costly, lengthy and uncertain de novo or PMA processes. Although we do not currently market any devices under PMA and have not gone through the de novo classification for marketing clearance, we cannot assure you that the FDA will not demand that we obtain a PMA prior to marketing or that we will be able to obtain 510(k) clearances with respect to future products.

The FDA can delay, limit or deny clearance or approval of a device for many reasons, including:

we may not be able to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction that our products meet the definition of “substantial equivalence” or meet the standard for the FDA to grant a petition for de novo classification;

we may not be able to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction that our products are safe and effective for their intended uses;

the data from our pre-clinical studies (bench and/or animal) and clinical trials may be insufficient to support clearance or approval, where required;

the manufacturing process or facilities we use may not meet applicable requirements; and

changes in FDA clearance or approval policies or the adoption of new regulations may require additional data.

Any delay in, or failure to receive or maintain, clearances or approvals for our products under development could prevent us from generating revenue from these products or achieving profitability. Additionally, the FDA and other governmental authorities have broad enforcement powers. Our failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could lead governmental authorities or a court to take action against us, including but not limited to:

issuing untitled (notice of violation) letters or public warning letters to us;

imposing fines and penalties on us;

obtaining an injunction or administrative detention preventing us from manufacturing or selling our products;

seizing products to prevent sale or transport or export;

bringing civil or criminal charges against us;

recalling our products or engaging in a product correction;

detaining our products at U.S. Customs;

delaying the introduction of our products into the market;

delaying pending requests for clearance or approval of new uses or modifications to our existing products; and/or

withdrawing or denying approvals or clearances for our products.

If we fail to obtain and maintain regulatory clearances or approvals, our ability to sell our products and generate revenue will be materially harmed.

Outside of the United States, our medical devices must comply with the laws and regulations of the foreign countries in which they are marketed, and compliance may be costly and time-consuming. Failure to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals in jurisdictions outside the United States will prevent us from marketing our products in such jurisdictions.

We currently market, and intend to continue to market, our products outside the United States. To market and sell our product in countries outside the United States, we must seek and obtain regulatory approvals, certifications or registrations and comply with the laws and regulations of those countries. These laws and regulations, including the requirements for approvals, certifications or registrations and the time required for regulatory review, vary from country to country. Obtaining and maintaining foreign regulatory approvals, certifications or registrations are expensive, and we cannot be certain that we will receive regulatory approvals, certifications or registrations in any foreign country in which we plan to market our products. The regulatory approval process outside the United States may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA clearance or approval in addition to other risks.

In order to market our products in the Member States of the EEA, our devices are required to comply with the essential requirements of the EU Medical Devices Directives (Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended, and Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 2009 relating to active implantable medical devices, as amended). Compliance with these requirements entitles us to affix the CE conformity mark to our medical devices, without which they cannot be commercialized in the EEA. In order to demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements and obtain the right to affix the CE conformity mark we must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. Except for low risk medical devices (Class I), where the manufacturer can issue an EC Declaration of Conformity based on a self-assessment of the conformity of its products with the essential requirements of the Medical Devices Directives, a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a Notified Body, which is an organization accredited by a Member State of the EEA to conduct conformity assessments. The Notified Body would typically audit and examine the quality system for the manufacture, design and final inspection of our devices before issuing a certification demonstrating compliance with the essential requirements. Based on this certification we can draw up an EC Declaration of Conformity, which allows us to affix the CE mark to our products.

We may not obtain regulatory approvals or certifications outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Clearance or approval by the FDA does not ensure approval or certification by regulatory authorities or Notified Bodies in other countries, and approval or certification by one foreign regulatory authority or Notified Body does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or by the FDA. We may be required to perform additional pre-clinical or clinical studies even if FDA clearance or approval, or the right to bear the CE mark, has been obtained. If we fail to obtain or maintain regulatory approvals, certifications or registrations in any foreign country in which we plan to market our products, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.

Modifications to our marketed products may require new 510(k) clearances or PMAs, or may require us to cease marketing or recall the modified productsdevices until such additional clearances or approvals are obtained.

The FDA requires device manufacturers to make a determination of whether or not a modification to a cleared and commercialized medical device requires a new approval or clearance. However, the FDA can review a manufacturer’s decision not to submit for additional approvals or clearances. Any modification to a 510(k)-clearedan FDA approved or cleared device that couldwould significantly affect its safety or efficacy or that would constitute a major change in its intended use technology, materials, packaging and certain manufacturing processes, maywould require a new PMA or 510(k) clearance and could be considered misbranded if the modified device is commercialized and such additional approval or possibly, a PMA. The FDA requires every manufacturer to make the determination regarding the need for a new 510(k) clearance or PMA in the first instance, but the FDA may (and often does) review the manufacturer’s

decision. The FDA maywas not agree with a manufacturer’s decision regarding whether a new clearance or approval is necessary for a modification, and may retroactively require the manufacturer to submit a premarket notification requesting 510(k) clearance or an application for PMA.obtained. We have made modifications to our products in the past and may make additional modifications in the future that we believe do not or will not require additional clearances or approvals. No assurance can be givencannot assure you that the FDA wouldwill agree with any of our decisions not to seek approvals or clearances for particular device modifications or that we will be successful in obtaining additional approvals or 510(k) clearances for modifications.

We obtained 510(k) premarket clearance for certain devices we market or marketed in the United States. We have subsequently modified some of those devices or device labeling since obtaining 510(k) clearance or PMA. The issue of whether a product modification is significant enough to require a 510(k), as opposed to a simple “letter-to-file” documentingunder the change, is in a state of flux. In 1997, FDA issued a guidance to address this issue and it is a guidance with which FDA and industry is very familiar. In 2011, FDA proposed a new modifications guidance that was very controversial with industry because industry interpreted the guidance to reflect FDA’s view that it would require more 510(k)s than underthese modifications did not significantly affect the 1997 modifications guidance. On July 9, 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, FDASIA, was signed into law. Among other things, FDASIA requires the FDA to withdraw this proposed new modifications guidance and does not allow the FDA to use this draft guidance as part of,safety or for the basis of, any premarket review or any compliance or enforcement decisions or actions. FDASIA also obligates the FDA to prepare a report for Congress on the FDA’s approach for determining when a new 510(k) will be required for modifications or changes to a previously cleared device. After submitting this report, the FDA is expected to issue revised guidance to assist device manufacturers in making this determination. Until then, manufacturers may continue to adhere to the FDA’s 1997 guidance on this topic when making a determination as to whether or not a new 510(k) is required for a change or modification to a device, but the practical impactefficacy of the FDA’s continuing scrutiny of these issues remains unclear.

device, and did not require new approvals or clearances. If the FDA disagrees with our decisions and requires us to obtain additional premarket approvals or 510(k) clearances for any modifications to our products and we fail to obtain such approvals or clearances or fail to secure approvals or clearances in a timely manner, we may be required to cease manufacturing and marketing andthe modified device or to recall asuch modified device until we obtain a new 510(k)FDA approval or clearance or PMA, our business, financial condition, operating results and future growth prospects could be materially adversely affected. Further, our products couldwe may be subject to recallsignificant regulatory fines or penalties.

Although our Corporate Integrity Agreement expired, if we were found to have breached it, we may be subject to criminal prosecution and/or exclusion from U.S. federal healthcare programs.

On September 29, 2010, Wright Medical Technology, Inc. entered into a 12-month Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the FDA determines,United States Attorney’s Office for any reason,the District of New Jersey (USAO). On September 15, 2011, WMT reached an agreement with the USAO and the OIG-HHS under which WMT voluntarily agreed to extend the term of its the Deferred Prosecution Agreement for 12 months. On October 4, 2012, the USAO issued a press release announcing that the amended Deferred Prosecution Agreement expired on September 29, 2012, that the USAO had moved to dismiss the criminal complaint against WMT because WMT had fully complied with the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and that the court had ordered dismissal of the complaint on October 4, 2012. On September 29, 2010, WMT also entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The CIA was filed as Exhibit 10.2 to legacy Wright's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 30, 2010. The CIA expired on September 29, 2015 and on January 27, 2016, we received notification from the OIG-HHS that the term of the CIA has concluded. While the term of the CIA has concluded, our products are not safe or effective. Any recall or FDA requirement that we seek additional approvals or clearances could result in significant delays, fines, increased costs associatedfailure to continue to maintain compliance with modification of a product, loss of revenue and potential operating restrictions imposed by the FDA.

Healthcare policy changes, including legislation to reform the U.S. healthcare system, may have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, collectively, the PPACA, substantially changes the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, encourages improvements in the quality of healthcare items and services, and significantly impacts the medical device industry. The PPACA includes, among other things, the following measures:

an excise tax on any entity that manufactures or imports medical devices offered for sale in the United States;

a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research;

new reporting and disclosure requirements on device manufacturers for any “transfer of value” made or distributed to prescriberslaws, regulations and other healthcare providers (referred to as the Physician Payment Sunshine Act), which reporting requirements will be difficult to define, track and report, and which reports are due to CMS by March 31, 2014 and by the 90th day of each calendar year thereafter;

payment system reforms including a national pilot program on payment bundling to encourage hospitals, physicians and other providers to improve the coordination, quality and efficiency of certain healthcare services through bundled payment models, beginning on or before January 1, 2013;

an independent payment advisory board that will submit recommendations to reduce Medicare spending if projected Medicare spending exceeds a specified growth rate; and

a new licensure framework for follow-on biologic products.

We cannot predict what healthcare programs and regulations will be ultimately implemented at the federal or state level, or the effect of any future legislation or regulation. However, these provisions as adopted could meaningfully change the way healthcare is delivered and financed, and may materially impact numerous aspects of our business. In particular, any changes that lower reimbursements for our products or reduce medical procedure volumes could adversely affect our business and operating results.

In addition, in the future there may continuecould expose us to besignificant liability, including, but not limited to, exclusion from federal healthcare program participation, including Medicaid and Medicare, potential prosecution, civil and criminal fines or penalties, as well as additional proposals relating to the reform of the U.S. healthcare system. Certain of these proposals could limit the prices we are able to charge for our products, or the amounts of reimbursement available for our products,litigation cost and could limit the acceptance and availability of our products. The adoption of some or all of these proposals couldexpense, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial position and operating results.

Furthermore, initiatives sponsored by government agencies, legislative bodies and the private sector to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including price regulation and competitive pricing, are ongoing in markets where we do business. We could experience a negative impact on ourcondition, operating results dueand cash flows.

The European Union and many of its world markets rely on the CE-Mark as the path to increased pricing pressuremarket our products.
The European Medical Device Directive requires that many of our products that bear the CE-Mark be supported by post-market clinical data. We are in the United Statesprocess of implementing systems and certain other markets. Governments, hospitalsprocedures to control this activity in order to comply with these requirements, including establishing contractual relationships with the healthcare provider clinical study sites in accordance with our internal compliance requirements. We intend to obtain the needed clinical data to support our marketed products, but there can be no assurance that European regulators will accept the results. This could potentially impact business performance. In addition, changes to the certification and other third-party payorsoversight responsibilities of notified bodies presently under consideration by the European Commission, if implemented, could reduceresult in more stringent notified body oversight requirements, require additional resources to maintain compliance, and increase the amountrisk of approved reimbursementsnegative audit observations.
Our biologics business is subject to emerging governmental regulations that can significantly impact our business.
The FDA has statutory authority to regulate allograft-based products, processing, and materials. The FDA, European Union and Health Canada have been working to establish more comprehensive regulatory frameworks for our products. Reductions in reimbursement levels or coverage or other cost-containment measures could unfavorably affect our future operating results.

Our financial performance may continue toallograft-based, tissue-containing products, which are principally derived from cadaveric tissue. The framework developed by the FDA establishes risk-based criteria for determining whether a particular human tissue-based product will be adversely affected by medical device tax provisions in the health care reform laws.

The PPACA imposes a deductible excise tax equal to 2.3% of the price ofclassified as human tissue, a medical device, on any entity that manufactures or imports medical devices offered for sale in the United States, with limited exceptions. Under these provisions, the total cost to the medical device industry was estimated to be approximately $20 billion over 10 years. These taxes resulted in a significant increase in the tax burden on our industry and on us, which negatively impacted our operating results and our cash flows during 2013. Should this tax continue to exist or change, our operating results could continue to be negatively impacted.

The use, misuse or off-label use of our products may harm our image in the marketplace or result in injuries that lead to product liability suits, which could be costly to our business or result in FDA sanctions if we are deemed to have engaged in improper promotion of our products.

Our products currently marketed in the United States have been cleared by the FDA’s 510(k) clearance process for use under specific circumstances. Our promotional materials and training methods must comply with FDA and other applicable laws and regulations, including the prohibition on the promotion of a medical device for a use that has not been cleared or approved by the FDA. Use of a device outside of its cleared or approved indication is known as “off-label” use. We cannot prevent a surgeon from using our products or procedure for off-label use, as the FDA does not restrict or regulate a physician’s choice of treatment within the practice of medicine. However, if the FDA determines that our promotional materials, reimbursement advice or training of sales representatives or physicians constitute promotion of an off-label use, the FDA could request that we modify our training or promotional or reimbursement materials or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, disgorgement of profits, a civil fine and criminal penalties. Other federal, state or foreign governmental authorities also might take action if they consider our promotion or training materials to constitute promotion of an uncleared or unapproved use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. In that event, our reputation could be damaged and adoption of the products would be impaired. Although we train our sales force not to promote our products for off-label uses, and our instructions for use in all markets specify that our products are not intended for use outside of those indications cleared for use, the FDA or another regulatory agency could conclude that we have engaged in off-label promotion.

Further, the advertising and promotion of our products is subject to EEA Member States laws implementing Directive 93/42/EEC concerning Medical Devices, or the EU Medical Devices Directive, Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising, and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, as well as other EEA Member State legislation governing the advertising and promotion of medical devices. These laws may limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may impose limitations on our promotional activities with healthcare professionals. Our failure to comply with all these laws and requirements may harm our business and operating results.

In addition, there may be increased risk of injury if surgeons attempt to use our products off-label. Furthermore, the use of our products for indications other than those indications for which our products have been cleared by the FDA may not effectively treat such conditions, which could harm our reputation in the marketplace among surgeons and patients. Surgeons also may misuse our products or use improper techniques if they are not adequately trained, potentially leading to injury and an increased risk of product liability. Product liability claims are expensive to defend and could divert our management’s attention and result in substantial damage awards against us. Any of these events could harm our business and operating results.

If our marketed medical devices are defective or otherwise pose safety risks, the FDA and similar foreign governmental authorities could require their recall, or we may initiate a recall of our products voluntarily.

The FDA and similar foreign governmental authorities may require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture or in the event that a product poses an unacceptable risk to health. Manufacturers, on their own initiative, may recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found. In the past we have initiated voluntary product recalls. For example, in August 2013, we initiated a voluntary Class II recall for instrumentation contained within the Aequalis Reversed II and the Aequalis Reversed Fracture instrument sets. We notified our distributors, sales representatives and all direct consignees and directed them to return the affected instrumentation to us in exchange for redesigned instruments.

A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us or one of our sales agencies could occur as a result of an unacceptable risk to health, component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues. Recalls of any of our products would divert managerial and financial resources and have an adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results. Any recall could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands. We also may be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on our future revenue and our ability to generate profits. We may initiate voluntary recalls involving our products in the future that we determine do not require notification of the FDA. If the FDA disagrees with our determinations, they could require us to report those actions as recalls. A future recall announcement could harm our reputation with customers and negatively affect our revenue. In addition, the FDA could take enforcement action for failing to report the recalls when they were conducted.

In the EEA we must comply with the EU Medical Device Vigilance System, the purpose of which is to improve the protection of health and safety of patients, users and others by reducing the likelihood of reoccurrence of incidents related to the use of a medical device. Under this system, incidents must be reported to the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA. An incident is defined as any malfunction or deterioration in the characteristics and/or performance of a device, as well as any inadequacy in the labeling or the instructions for use which, directly or indirectly, might lead to or might have led to the death of a patient or user or of other persons or to a serious deterioration in their state of health. Incidents are evaluated by the EEA competent authorities to whom they have been reported, and where appropriate, information is disseminated between them in the form of National Competent Authority Reports, or NCARs. The Medical Device Vigilance System is further intended to facilitate a direct, early and harmonized implementation of Field Safety Corrective Actions, or FSCAs across the Member States of the EEA where the device is in use. An FSCA is an action taken by a manufacturer to reduce a risk of death or serious deterioration in the state of health associated with the use of a medical device that is already placed on the market. An FSCA may include the recall, modification, exchange, destruction or retrofitting of the device. FSCAs must be communicated by the manufacturer or its legal representative to its customers and/or to the end users of the device through Field Safety Notices.

If our products cause or contribute to a death or a serious injury, or malfunction in certain ways, we will be subject to medical device reporting regulations, which can result in voluntary corrective actions or agency enforcement actions.

Under the FDA medical device reporting regulations, or MDR, we are required to report to the FDA any incident in which our product has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or in which our product malfunctioned and, if the malfunction were to recur, would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury. If we fail to report these events to the FDA within the required timeframes, or at all, the FDA could take enforcement action against us. Any adverse event involving our products could result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection, mandatory recall or other enforcement action. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, as well as defending ourselves in a lawsuit, will require the dedication of our time and capital, distract management from operating our business, and may harm our reputation and financial results.

Our manufacturing operations require us to comply with the FDA’s and other governmental authorities’ laws and regulations regarding the manufacture and production of medical devices, which is costly and could subject us to enforcement action.

We and certain of our third-party manufacturers are required to comply with the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Program (cGMP) and Quality System Regulations, or QSR, which cover the methods of documentation of the design, testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, sterilization, storage and shipping of our products. We and certain of our suppliers also are subject to the regulations of foreign jurisdictions regarding the manufacturing process for our products marketed outside of the United States. The FDA enforces the QSR through periodic announced and unannounced inspections of manufacturing facilities. In January 2013, our OrthoHelix facility located in Medina, Ohio was subject to a routine FDA inspection. The inspection resulted in the issuance of a Form FDA-483 listing four inspectional observations. The FDA’s observations related to our documentation of corrective and preventative actions, procedures for receiving, reviewing and evaluating complaints, procedures to control product that does not conform to specified requirements and procedures to ensure that all purchased or otherwise received product and services conform to specified requirements. Although we believe we have corrected all four of these observations, the FDA could disagree with our conclusion and take corrective and remedial measures. In April 2013, our manufacturing facility located in Montbonnot, France was subject to a routine FDA inspection. The inspection resulted in the issuance of a Form FDA-483 listing one inspectional observation. The FDA’s observation related to our establishment of records of acceptable suppliers, contractors and consultants. Although we believe we have corrected the observation, the FDA could disagree with our conclusion and corrective and remedial measures. The failure by us or one of our suppliers to comply with applicable statutes and regulations administered by the

FDA and other regulatory bodies, or the failure to timely and adequately respond to any adverse inspectional observations or product safety issues, could result in, among other things, any of the following enforcement actions:

untitled letters, warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees, disgorgement of profits, criminal and civil penalties;

customer notifications or repair, replacement, refunds, recall, detention or seizure of our products;

operating restrictions or partial suspension or total shutdown of production;

refusing or delaying our requests forbiologic drug requiring 510(k) clearance or PMA approval of newapproval. All tissue-based products or modified products;

withdrawing 510(k) clearances or PMAs that have already been granted;

refusal to grant export approval for our products; or

criminal prosecution.

Any of these actions could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands. We also may be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on our future revenue and our ability to generate profits. Furthermore, our key component suppliers may not currently be or may not continue to be in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, which could result in our failure to produce our products on a timely basis and in the required quantities, if at all.

We are subject to substantial post-market governmentextensive FDA regulation, including establishment of registration requirements, product listing requirements, good tissue practice requirements for manufacturing, and screening requirements that could haveensure that diseases are not transmitted to tissue recipients. The FDA has also proposed extensive additional requirements addressing sub-contracted tissue services, traceability to the recipient/patient, and donor records review. If a material adverse effecttissue-based product is considered human tissue, FDA requirements focus on preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases to recipients. Clinical data or review of safety and efficacy is not required before the tissue can be marketed. However, if tissue is considered a medical device or biologic drug, then FDA clearance or approval is required.

Additionally, our business.

Many states such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, Nevadabiologics business involves the procurement and Vermont require different typestransplantation of compliance such as having a code of conduct, as well as reporting remuneration paidallograft tissue, which is subject to health care professionals or entities in a position to influence prescribing behavior. Many of these industry standards inevitably influence company standards of conduct. Other laws tie into these standards as well, such as compliance with the advertising and promotion regulationsfederal regulation under the U.S. federal Food, Drug and CosmeticNational Organ Transplant Act the Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, the Physician Payment Sunshine Act and other laws. We use many distributors and independent sales representatives in certain territories and thus rely upon their compliance with applicable laws and regulations, such as with the advertising and promotion regulations under the U.S. federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Anti-kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, similar laws under countries located outside the United States and other applicable federal, state or international laws. The failure by us or one of our distributors, representatives or suppliers to comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements could result in, among other things, the FDA or other governmental authorities:

imposing fines and penalties on us;

preventing us from manufacturing or selling our products;

delaying the introduction of our new products into the market;

recalling, seizing, detaining or enjoining(NOTA). NOTA prohibits the sale of our products;

withdrawing, delaying or denying approvals or clearances for our products;

issuing warning letters or untitled letters;

imposing operating restrictions;

imposing injunctions; and

commencing criminal prosecutions.

Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements also could result in civil actions against ushuman organs, including bone and other unanticipated expenditures. If anyhuman tissue, for valuable consideration within the meaning of NOTA. NOTA permits the payment of reasonable expenses associated with the transportation, processing, preservation, quality control, and storage of human tissue. We currently charge our customers for these actions wereexpenses. In the future, if NOTA is amended or reinterpreted, we may not be able to occur it would harmcharge these expenses to our reputationcustomers, and, causeas a result, our product revenue to sufferbusiness could be adversely affected.

Our principal allograft-based biologics offerings include ALLOMATRIX®, GRAFTJACKET® and may prevent us from generating revenue.

IGNITE® products.

The results of our clinical trials may not support our product claims or may result in the discovery of adverse side effects.

Our ongoing research and development, pre-clinical testing, and clinical trial activities are subject to extensive regulation and review by numerous governmental authorities both in the United States and abroad. We are currently conducting post-market clinical studies of some orof our products to gather additional information about these products’ safety, efficacy, or optimal use. We are also conducting a clinical trial of our Simpliciti product in the United States. In the future we may conduct additional clinical trials to support approval of new products. Clinical studies must be conducted in compliance with FDA regulations or the FDA may take enforcement action. The data collected from these clinical trials may ultimately be used to support market approval or clearance for these products or gather additional information about approved or cleared products. Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our product claims or that the FDA or foreign authorities will agree with our conclusions regarding them. Success in pre-clinical testing and early clinical trials does not always ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the later trials will replicate the results of prior trials and studies. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our products are safe and effective for the proposed indicated uses, which could cause us to abandon a product and may delay development of others.

Any delay or termination of our clinical trials will delay the filing of our product submissions and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our products and generate revenue. It is also possible that patients enrolled in clinical trials will experience adverse side effects that are not currently part of the product’s profile.

If the third parties on which we rely to conduct our clinical trials and to assist us with pre-clinicalclinical development do not perform as contractually required or expected, we may not be able to obtain, or in some cases, maintain regulatory clearance or approval for or commercialize our products.

We often must rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, medical institutions, clinical investigators, and contract laboratories to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or regulatory obligations or meet expected deadlines, if these third parties need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements, or for other reasons, our pre-clinical and clinical development activities or clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended, or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain or, in some cases maintain, regulatory clearance or approval for, or successfully commercialize, our products on a timely basis, if at all, and our business, operating results, and prospects may be adversely affected. Furthermore, our third-party clinical trial investigators may be delayed in conducting our clinical trials for reasons outside of their control.

Future regulatory actions

If we fail to compete successfully in the future against our existing or potential competitors, our sales and operating results may adversely affectbe negatively affected, and we may not achieve future growth.
The markets for our products are highly competitive and subject to rapid and profound technological change. Our success depends, in part, on our ability to sellmaintain a competitive position in the development of technologies and products for use by our customers. Many of the companies developing or marketing competitive products profitably.

From timeenjoy several competitive advantages over us, including greater financial and human resources for product development and sales and marketing; greater name recognition; established relationships with surgeons, hospitals and third-party payors; broader product lines and the ability to time, legislation is draftedoffer rebates or bundle products to offer greater discounts or incentives to gain a competitive advantage; and introduced that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the clearance or approval, manufactureestablished sales and marketing and distribution networks. Some of a medical device. In addition, FDAour competitors have indicated an increased focus on the extremities and other regulationsbiologics markets, which are our primary strategic focus. Our competitors may develop and guidance are often revisedpatent processes or reinterpreted in waysproducts earlier than us, obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for competing products more rapidly than us, develop more effective or less expensive products or technologies that may significantly affectrender our businesstechnology or products obsolete or non-competitive or acquire technologies and our products. It is impossibletechnology licenses complementary to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted or regulations, guidance or interpretations changed, and what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

We may be subject to or otherwise affected by federal, state, and international healthcare laws, including fraud and abuse, false claims and health information privacy and security laws, and could face substantial penalties if we are unable to fully comply with such laws.

Although we do not provide healthcare services, submit claims for third-party reimbursement, or receive payments directly from Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors for our products or the procedures in which our products are used, healthcare regulation by federal, state and foreign governments could significantly impact our business. Healthcare fraud and abuse and health information privacy and security laws potentially applicableadvantageous to our operations include:

the federal Anti-Kickback Law, which constrains our marketing practices and those of our independent sales agencies, educational programs, pricing, bundling and rebate policies, grants for physician-initiated trials and continuing medical education, and other remunerative relationships with healthcare providers, by prohibiting, among other things, soliciting, receiving, offering or providing remuneration, intended to induce the purchase or recommendation of an item or service reimbursable under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare or Medicaid programs;

federal false claims laws (such as the federal False Claims Act) which prohibit, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment from Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent, which impacts and regulates the reimbursement advice we give to our customers as it cannot be inaccurate and must relate to on-label uses of our products;

the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, and its implementing regulations, which created federal criminal laws that prohibit executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters and which also imposes certain regulatory and contractual requirements regarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information;

state laws analogous to each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers, and state laws governing the privacy and security of certain health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts; and

federal, state and international laws that impose reporting and disclosure requirements on device and drug manufacturers for any “transfer of value” made or distributed to prescribers and other healthcare providers.

If our past or present operations, or those of our independent sales agencies, are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from federal healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Similarly, if the healthcare providers or entities with whom we do business, are found to be non-compliant with

applicable laws, they may be subject to sanctions, which could also have a negative impact on us. Any penalties, damages, fines, curtailment or restructuring of our operations could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. The risk of our company being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of them have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Further, the PPACA, among other things, amends the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback and criminal health care fraud statutes. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the PPACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the false claims statutes. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against them, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business.

The PPACA also includes a number of provisions that impact medical device manufacturers, including the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Failure to submit required information under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act may result in civil monetary penalties of up to an aggregate of $150,000 per year (and up to an aggregate of $1 million per year for “knowing failures”), for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests not reported in an annual submission.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased state and international regulation of payments made to physicians for marketing. Some states, such as Massachusetts and Vermont, mandate implementation of compliance programs, along with the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation, and other remuneration to physicians. Several countries, such as France, also regulate payments made to physicians. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and/or reporting requirements increases the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements. Our efforts to comply with these regulations have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, significant general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. Our failure to comply with all these laws and requirements may harm our business and operating results.

Governments and regulatory authorities vigorously enforce healthcare fraud and abuse laws, especially against companies in our industry. While we have not been the target of any investigations, we cannot guarantee that we will not be investigated in the future. If investigated we cannot assure that the costs of defending or resolving those investigations or proceedings would not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating results and cash flows.

Our existing xenograft-based biologics business is and any future biologics products we pursue would be subject to emerging governmental regulations that could materially affect our business.

Some of our products are xenograft, or animal-based, tissue products. Our principal xenograft-based biologics offering is Conexa reconstructive tissue matrix. All of our current xenograft tissue-based products are regulated as medical devices and are subject to the FDA’s medical device regulations.

We currently are planning to offer products based on human tissue. The FDA has statutory authority to regulate human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps. An HCT/P is a product containing or consisting of human cells or tissue intended for transplantation into a human patient, including allograft-based products. The FDA, EU and Health Canada have been working to establish more comprehensive regulatory frameworks for allograft-based, tissue-containing products, which are principally derived from cadaveric tissue.

Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, authorizes the FDA to issue regulations to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable disease. HCT/Ps regulated as 361 HCT/Ps are subject to requirements relating to: registering facilities and listing products with the FDA; screening and testing for tissue donor eligibility; Good Tissue Practice, or GTP, when processing, storing, labeling and distributing HCT/Ps, including required labeling information; stringent recordkeeping; and adverse event reporting. The FDA has also proposed extensive additional requirements that address sub-contracted tissue services, tracking to the recipient/patient, and donor records review. If a tissue-based product is considered human tissue, the FDA requirements focus on preventing the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable diseases to recipients. A product regulated solely as a 361 HCT/P is not required to undergo premarket clearance (510(k)) or approval (de novo or PMA).

The FDA may inspect facilities engaged in manufacturing 361 HCT/Ps and may issue untitled letters, warning letters, or otherwise authorize orders of retention, recall, destruction and cessation of manufacturing if the FDA has reasonable grounds to believe that an HCT/P or the facilities where it is manufactured are in violation of applicable regulations. There also are requirements relating to the import of HCT/Ps that allow the FDA to make a decision as to the HCT/Ps’ admissibility into the United States.

An HCT/P is eligible for regulation solely as a 361 HCT/P if it is: (i) minimally manipulated; (ii) intended for homologous use as determined by labeling, advertising or other indications of the manufacturer’s objective intent for a homologous use; (iii) the manufacture does not involve combination with another article, except for water, crystalloids or a sterilizing, preserving, or storage agent (not raising new clinical safety concerns for the HCT/P); and (iv) it does not have a systemic effect and is not dependent upon the metabolic activity of living cells for its primary function or, if it has such an effect, it is intended for autologous use or allogenetic use in close relatives or for reproductive use. If any of these requirements are not met, then the HCT/P is also subject to applicable biologic, device, or drug regulation under the FDCA or the PHSA. These biologic, device or drug HCT/Ps must comply both with the requirements exclusively applicable to 361 HCT/Ps and, in addition, with requirements applicable to biologics under the PHSA, or devices or drugs under the FDCA, including premarket licensure, clearance or approval.

Title VII of the PPACA, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, creates a new licensure framework for follow-on biologic products, which could ultimately subject our biologics business to competition to so-called “biosimilars.” Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a referenced, branded biologic product. Previously, there had been no licensure pathway for such a follow-on product. While we do not anticipate that the FDA will license a follow-on biologic for several years, given the need to generate data sufficient to demonstrate “biosimilarity” to or “interchangeability” with the branded biologic according to criteria set forth in the BPCIA, as well as the need for the FDA to implement the BPCIA’s provisions with respect to particular classes of biologic products, we cannot guarantee that our biologics will not eventually become subject to direct competition by a licensed “biosimilar.”

Procurement of certain human organs and tissue for transplantation, including allograft tissue we may use in future products, is subject to federal regulation under the National Organ Transplant Act, or NOTA. NOTA prohibits the acquisition, receipt, or other transfer of certain human organs, including bone and other human tissue, for valuable consideration within the meaning of NOTA. NOTA permits the payment of reasonable expenses associated with the removal, transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control and storage of human organs. For any future products implicating NOTA’s requirements, we would reimburse tissue banks for their expenses associated with the recovery, storage and transportation of donated human tissue that they would provide to us. NOTA payment allowances may be interpreted to limit the amount of costs and expenses that we may recover in our pricing for our services, thereby negatively impacting our future revenue and profitability. If we were to be found to have violated NOTA’s prohibition on the sale or transfer of human tissue for valuable consideration, we would potentially be subject to criminal enforcement sanctions, which could materially and adversely affect our operating results. Further, in the future, if NOTA is amended or reinterpreted, we may not be able to pass these expenses on to our customers and, as a result, our business could be adversely affected.

Our operations involve the use of hazardous materials, and we must comply with environmental health and safety laws and regulations, which can be expensive and may affect our business and operating results.

We are subject to a variety Not all of laws and regulations of the countries in which we operate and distribute products, such as the United States, France, Ireland, other EU nationsour sales and other countries, relating to the use, registration, handling, storage, disposal, recycling and human exposure to hazardous materials. Liability under environmental laws can be joint and several and without regard to comparative fault, and environmental, health and safety laws could become more stringent over time, imposing greater compliance costs and increasing risks and penalties associated with violations, which could harm our business. In the EU, where our manufacturing facilities are located, we and our suppliers are subject to EU environmental requirements such as the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals, or REACH, regulation. In addition, we are subject to the environmental, health and safety requirements of individual European countries in which we operate such as France and Ireland. For example, in France, requirements known as the Installations Classées pour la Protection de l’Environnement regime provide for specific environmental standards related to industrial operations such as noise, water treatment, air quality and energy consumption. In Ireland, our manufacturing facilities are likewise subject to local environmental regulations, such as related to water pollution and water quality, that are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. We believe that we are in material compliance with all applicable environmental, health and safety requirements in the countries in which we operate and do notpersonnel have reason to believe that we are responsible for any cleanup liabilities. In addition, certain hazardous materials are present at some of our facilities, such as asbestos, that we believe are managed in compliance with all applicable laws.non-compete agreements. We also are subject to greenhouse gas regulationscompete with other organizations in the EUrecruiting and elsewhereretaining qualified scientific, sales, and we believe that we are in compliance based on present emissions levels at our facilities. Although we believe that our activities conform in all material respects with applicable environmental, health and safety laws, we cannot assure you that violations of such laws will not arise as a result of human error, accident, equipment failure, presently unknown conditions or other causes. The failure to comply with past, present or future laws, including potential laws relating to climate control initiatives, could result in the imposition of fines, third-party property damage and personal injury claims, investigation and remediation costs, the suspension of production or a cessation of operations. We also expect that our operations will be affected by other new environmental and health and safety laws, including laws relating to climate control initiatives, on an ongoing basis. Although we cannot predict the ultimate impact of any such new laws, they could result in additional costs and may require us to change how we design, manufacture or distribute our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our business is subject to evolving corporate governance and public disclosure regulations that result in significant compliance costs. Our noncompliance with these regulations could have an adverse effect on our stock price.

We are subject to changing rules and regulations promulgated by a number of U.S. and Dutch governmental and self-regulated organizations, including the SEC, the NASDAQ Stock Market, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. These rules and regulations continue to evolve in scope and complexity and many new requirements have been created, making compliance more difficult and uncertain. Our efforts to comply with these regulations have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, significant general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

personnel. If our patents and other intellectual property rights do not adequately protect our products,competitors are more successful than us in these matters, we may lose market share to our competitors and may be unable to prevent competitors from competingcompete successfully against us.

We rely on patents, trade secrets, copyrights, know-how, trademarks, license agreements and contractual provisions to establish our intellectual property rights and protect our products. These legal means, however, afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights. The patents we own may not be of sufficient scopeexisting or strength to provide us with any meaningful protection or commercial advantage, and competitors may be able to design around our patents or develop products that duplicate our own products or provide outcomes that are similar to ours.

U.S. patents and patent applications may befuture competitors. In addition, the orthopaedic industry has been subject to interference proceedings,increasing consolidation recently and U.S. patents may be subject to reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review, derivation proceedings or other proceedingsover the last few years. Consolidation in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Foreign patents may be subject to opposition, nullity actions, or comparable proceedings in the corresponding foreign patent offices. Any of these proceedingsour industry not involving our company could result in loss of the patent or denial of the patent application, or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more of the claims of the patent or patent application. Changes in either patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws may also diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our protection. Interference, reexamination, opposition proceedings,existing competitors increasing their market share through business combinations and invalidation actions such as nullity proceedings may be costly and time-consuming, and we, or the other parties from whom we might potentially license intellectual property, may be unsuccessful in defending against such proceedings. Thus, any patents that we own or might license may provide limited or no protection against competitors.

We cannot be certain that any of our pending patent applications will be issued. The USPTO or foreign patent offices may reject or require a significant narrowing of the claims in our pending patent applications and those we may file in the future affecting the patents issuing from such applications. We could incur substantial costs in proceedings before the USPTO and the proceedings may be time-consuming, which may cause significant diversion of effort by our technical and management personnel. These proceedings could result in adverse decisions as to the patentability or validity of claims directed to our inventions and may result in the narrowing or cancellation of claims in issued patents. Even if any of our pending or future applications are issued, they may not provide us with significant commercial protection or any competitive advantages. Our patents and patent applications cover particular aspects of our products. Other parties may develop and obtain patent protection for more effective technologies, designs or methods. If these developments were to occur, they would likely have an adverse effect on our sales. There may be prior public disclosures that could invalidate our inventions or parts of our inventions of which we are not aware. Our ability to develop additional patentable technology is also uncertain. In addition, the laws of some of the countries in which our products are or may be sold may not protect our intellectual property to the same extent as U.S. laws or at all, particularly in the field of medical products and procedures. We also may be unable to protect our rights in trade secrets and unpatented proprietary technology in these countries.

Non-payment or delay in payment of patent fees or annuities, whether intentional or unintentional, may also result in the loss of patents or patent rights important to our business. Many countries, including certain countries in Europe, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to other parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against other parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of the patent.

In the event a competitor infringes our patent or other intellectual property rights, enforcing those rights may be costly, difficult and time-consuming. Even if successful, litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights or to defend our patents against challenge could be expensive and time-consuming and could divert our management’s attention. An adverse decision in any legal action could limit our ability to assert our intellectual property rights, limit the value of our technology or otherwise negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Monitoring unauthorized use of our intellectual property is difficult and costly. Unauthorized use of our intellectual property may have occurred or may occur in the future. Although we have taken steps to reduce the risk of this occurring, any such failure to identify unauthorized use and otherwise adequately protect our intellectual property would adversely affect our business. We may not have sufficient resources to enforce our intellectual property rights or to defend our patents or other intellectual property rights against a challenge. If we are unsuccessful in enforcing and protecting our intellectual property rights and protecting our products, it could harm our business and operating results.

Patent law can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important principles remain unresolved. In the United States and in many foreign jurisdictions, policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in patents can be inconsistent. The U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have made, and will likely continue to make, changes in how the patent laws of the United States are interpreted. Patent law has recently been modified by the U.S. Congress, and future potential legislation could further change provisions of patent law. We cannot predict future changes in the interpretation of patent laws or changes to patent laws. Those changes may materially affect our patents, our ability to obtain patents or the patents and applications of our licensors. Future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

In particular, there are numerous recent changes to the U.S. patent laws and proposed changes to the rules of the USPTO that may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain and enforce intellectual property rights. For example, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was adopted in September 2011. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. Under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-inventor-to-file” system for patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. With respect to patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, if we are the first to invent but not the first to file a patent application, we may not be able to fully protect our intellectual property rights and may be found to have violated the intellectual property rights of others if we continue to operate in the absence of a patent issued to us. Many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act have recently become effective. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all ofstronger competitors, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and financial condition.

operating results. We rely onmay be unable to compete successfully in an increasingly consolidated industry and cannot predict with certainty how industry consolidation will affect our trademarks, trade namescompetitors or us.

We operate in markets outside the United States that are subject to political, economic, and brand namessocial instability and expose us to distinguish our products fromadditional risks.
Operations in countries outside of the productsUnited States accounted for approximately 26% of our competitors, and have registered or applied to register many of these trademarks. However,net sales for our trademark applications may not be approved. Third parties may also oppose our trademark applications or otherwise challenge our usefiscal year ended December 25, 2016. Our operations outside of the trademarks. InUnited States are accompanied by certain financial and other risks. We intend to continue to pursue growth opportunities in sales outside the eventUnited States, especially in emerging markets, which could expose us to greater risks associated with international sales operations. Our international sales operations expose us and our representatives, agents, and distributors to risks inherent in operating in foreign jurisdictions. These risks include:
the imposition of additional U.S. and foreign governmental controls or regulations on orthopaedic implants and biologic products;
withdrawal from or revision to international trade agreements and the imposition or increases in import and export licensing and other compliance requirements, customs duties and tariffs, import and export quotas and other trade restrictions, license obligations, and other non-tariff barriers to trade;
unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements;
the imposition of U.S. or international sanctions against a country, company, person, or entity with whom we do business that would restrict or prohibit continued business with that country, company, person, or entity;
economic instability, including currency risk between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies, in our trademarks are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand our products,target markets;
economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets;

the imposition of restrictions on the activities of foreign agents, representatives, and distributors;
scrutiny of foreign tax authorities, which could result in significant fines, penalties, and additional taxes being imposed upon us;
a shortage of high-quality international salespeople and distributors;
loss of brand recognitionany key personnel who possess proprietary knowledge or are otherwise important to our success in international markets;
changes in third-party reimbursement policy that may require some of the patients who receive our products to directly absorb medical costs or that may necessitate our reducing selling prices for our products;
unexpected changes in foreign regulatory requirements;
differing local product preferences and could require us to devote resources to advertisingproduct requirements;
changes in tariffs and marketing these new brands. Further, our competitors may infringe our trademarks, or we may not have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks.

In addition, we hold licenses from third parties that relateother trade restrictions, particularly related to the design and manufacture of someexportation of our products. The loss ofbiologic products;

work stoppages or strikes in the healthcare industry, such licenses couldas those that have affected our operations in France, Canada, South Korea, and Finland in the past;
difficulties in enforcing and defending intellectual property rights;
foreign currency exchange controls that might prevent us from manufacturing, marketingrepatriating cash earned in countries outside the Netherlands;
complex data privacy requirements and selling these products,labor relations laws; and
exposure to different legal and political standards due to our conducting business in over 50 countries.
In addition, on June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum in which voters approved an exit from the European Union, commonly referred to as “Brexit.” As a result of the referendum, negotiations will determine the future terms of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, including the terms of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Although it is unknown what those terms will be, it is possible that there will be greater restrictions on the movement of goods and people between the United Kingdom and European Union countries and increased regulatory complexities, which could harmaffect our business. If we, or the other parties from whom we would license intellectual property, failability to obtain and maintain adequate patent or other intellectual property protection for intellectual property used insell our products or if any protection is reduced or eliminated, othersin certain European Union countries. Brexit could use the intellectual property usedadversely affect European and worldwide economic and market conditions and could contribute to instability in our products, resultingglobal financial and foreign exchange markets, including volatility in harm to our competitive business position.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information and know-how, the value of our technologythe British pound and products could be adversely affected.

Euro. In addition, to patents, weother European countries may seek to protectconduct referenda with respect to continuing membership with the European Union. We do not know to what extent these changes will impact our trade secrets, know-how and other unpatented technology, in part, with confidentiality agreements with our vendors, employees, consultantsbusiness. Any of these effects of Brexit, and others who maythat we cannot anticipate, could adversely affect our business, operations and financial results.

Since we conduct operations through U.S. operating subsidiaries, not only are we subject to the laws of non-U.S. jurisdictions, but we also are subject to U.S. laws governing our activities in foreign countries, such as the FCPA, as well as various import-export laws, regulations, and embargoes. If our business activities were determined to violate these laws, regulations, or rules, we could suffer serious consequences.
Healthcare regulation and reimbursement for medical devices vary significantly from country to country. This changing environment could adversely affect our ability to sell our products in some jurisdictions.
We have access to proprietary information.a significant amount of indebtedness. We cannot be certain, however, that these agreements will not be breached, adequate remedies for any breach would be available or our trade secrets, know-how and other unpatented proprietary technology will not otherwise become known to or be independently developed by our competitors. We also have taken precautions to initiate safeguards to protect our information technology systems. However, these measures may not be adequateable to safeguardgenerate enough cash flow from our proprietary intellectual propertyoperations to service our indebtedness, and conflictswe may nonetheless, arise regarding ownershipincur additional indebtedness in the future, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and operating results.
We have a significant amount of inventions. Such conflicts may leadindebtedness, including $395.0 million in aggregate principal with additional accrued interest under our 2.25% cash convertible senior notes due 2021 (2021 Notes), $587.5 million in aggregate principal with additional accrued interest under WMG’s 2.00% cash convertible senior notes due 2020, which Wright Medical Group N.V. has guaranteed (2020 Notes), and $2.0 million in aggregate principal with additional accrued interest under WMG’s 2.00% cash convertible senior notes due 2017 (2017 Notes, together with the 2020 and 2021 Notes, the Notes) as of December 25, 2016. In addition, in December 2016, we entered into a credit, security and guaranty agreement (ABL Credit Agreement) with Midcap Financial Trust and the additional lenders from time to time party thereto (ABL Lenders) which provides WMG and certain of our other wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries with a $150.0 million senior secured asset based line of credit, subject to the losssatisfaction of a borrowing base requirement, and which may be increased by up to $100.0 million upon our request, subject to the consent of the ABL Lenders (ABL Facility). As of December 25, 2016, $30.0 million in aggregate principal plus additional accrued interest was outstanding under the ABL Facility.

Our ability to make payments on, and to refinance, our indebtedness, including the Notes and amounts borrowed under the ABL Facility, and our ability to fund planned capital expenditures, contractual cash obligations, research and development efforts, working capital, acquisitions, and other general corporate purposes depends on our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory, and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. If we do not generate sufficient cash flow from operations or impairmentif future borrowings are not available to us in an amount sufficient to pay our indebtedness, including payments of principal upon conversion of outstanding Notes or on their respective maturity dates or in connection with a transaction involving us that constitutes a fundamental change under the respective indenture governing the Notes, or to fund our liquidity needs, we may be forced to refinance all or a portion of our intellectual propertyindebtedness on or before the maturity dates thereof, sell assets, reduce or delay capital expenditures, seek to expensive litigation to defend our rights against competitors who may be better funded and have superior resources. Our employees, consultants, contractors, outside clinical collaborators andraise additional capital, or take other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors. In addition, confidentiality agreementssimilar actions. We may not be enforcedable to execute any of these actions on commercially reasonable terms or may not provide an adequate remedyat all. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness will depend on our financial condition at the time, the restrictions in the instruments governing our indebtedness, and other factors, including market conditions. In addition, in the event of unauthorized disclosure. Enforcing a claim thatdefault under the Notes or under the ABL Facility, the holders and/or the trustee under the indentures governing the Notes or the lenders under the ABL Facility may accelerate payment obligations under the Notes and/or the amounts borrowed under the ABL Facility, respectfully, which could have a third party illegally obtainedmaterial adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and is usingoperating results. In addition, the Notes and ABL Facility contain cross default provisions. Our inability to generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy our trade secrets is expensivedebt service obligations, or to refinance or restructure our obligations on commercially reasonable terms or at all, would likely have an adverse effect, which could be material, on our business, financial condition, and time-consuming,operating results.
In addition, our significant indebtedness, combined with our other financial obligations and the outcome is unpredictable. Moreover,contractual commitments, could have other important consequences. For example, it could:
make us more vulnerable to adverse changes in general U.S. and worldwide economic, industry, and competitive conditions and adverse changes in government regulation;
limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and our industry;
restrict our ability to make strategic acquisitions or dispositions or to exploit business opportunities;
place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methodswho have less debt; and know-how.

Unauthorized parties also may attempt

limit our ability to copy or reverse engineer certain aspectsborrow additional amounts for working capital, capital expenditures, contractual obligations, research and development efforts, acquisitions, debt service requirements, execution of our products thatbusiness strategy, or other purposes.
Any of these factors could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and operating results. In addition, we consider proprietary,may incur additional indebtedness, and in such casesif we could not assert any trade secret rights against such party. As a result, other parties may be abledo, the risks related to use our proprietary technology or information,business and our ability to competeservice our indebtedness would increase.
In addition, under our Notes, we are required to offer to repurchase the Notes upon the occurrence of a fundamental change, which could include, among other things, any acquisition of ours for consideration other than publicly traded securities. The repurchase price must be paid in cash, and this obligation may have the marketplaceeffect of discouraging, delaying, or preventing an acquisition of ours that would otherwise be harmed.

Somebeneficial to our security holders.

With respect to the 2021 Notes which have been issued by Wright Medical Group N.V., we are dependent on the cash flow of, and dividends and distributions to us from, our subsidiaries in order to service our indebtedness under these Notes. Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay any amounts due pursuant to any indebtedness of ours or to make any funds available therefor, except for those subsidiaries that have guaranteed our obligations under our outstanding indebtedness. The ability of our employees were previously employed at other medical device companies focused on the development of orthopaedic devices. We maysubsidiaries to pay any dividends and distributions will be subject to, claimsamong other things, the terms of any debt instruments of our subsidiaries then in effect as well as among other things, the availability of profits or funds and requirements of applicable laws, including surplus, solvency and other limits imposed on the ability of companies to pay dividends. There can be no assurance that these employeesour subsidiaries will generate cash flow sufficient to pay dividends or we have inadvertentlydistributions to us that enable us to pay interest or otherwise usedprincipal on our existing indebtedness.
A failure to comply with the covenants and other provisions of the indentures governing the Notes or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigationthe ABL Credit Agreement could result in substantial costs, damage toevents of default under such indentures or ABL Credit Agreement, especially in light of the cross default provisions, which could require the immediate repayment of our reputation and be a distraction to management.

Our commercial technology and any future products and services that we develop could be alleged to infringe patent rights of third parties, which may require costly litigation and, ifoutstanding indebtedness. If we are not successful, could cause usat any time unable to pay significant damages or limitgenerate sufficient cash flows from operations to service our ability to commercialize our products.

The orthopaedic medical device industryindebtedness when payment is litigious with respect to patents and other intellectual property rights. Companies in the orthopaedic medical device industry have used intellectual property litigation to gain a competitive advantage. Non-practicing entities also have used intellectual property litigation to seek revenue from orthopaedic companies. We cannot provide assurance that our products or methods do not infringe the patents or other intellectual property rights of third parties, and as our business grows, the possibility may increase that others will assert infringement claims against us. Determining whether a product infringes a patent involves complex legal and factual issues, and the outcome of a patent litigation action is often uncertain. No assurance can be given that patents containing claims covering our products, parts of our products, technology or methods do not exist, have not been filed or could not be filed or issued. Because of the number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our technical areas, our competitors or other parties may assert that our products and the methods we employ in the use of our products are covered by U.S. or foreign patents held by them. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue and because publication schedules for pending applications vary by jurisdiction, there may be applications now pending of which we are unaware and which may result in issued patents that our current or future products infringe. Also, because the claims of published patent applications can change between publication and patent grant, there may be published patent applications that may ultimately issue with claims that we infringe. There could also be existing patents that one or more of our products or parts may infringe and of which we are unaware. In certain situations, we may determine that it is in our best interests to voluntarily challenge a party’s products or patents in litigation or other proceedings, including patent interferences or reexaminations.

Any legal proceeding involving patents or other intellectual property, regardless of outcome, could drain our financial resources and divert the time and effort of our management. A patent infringement suit or other infringement or misappropriation claim brought against us or any of our licensees may force us or any of our licensees to stop or delay developing, manufacturing or selling potential products that are claimed to infringe a third party’s intellectual property, unless that party grants us or any of our licensees rights to use its intellectual property. In such cases,due, we may be required to attempt to renegotiate the terms of the indentures, the ABL Credit Agreement and other agreements relating to the indebtedness, seek to refinance all or a portion of the indebtedness, or obtain licensesadditional financing. There can be no assurance that we will be able to patentssuccessfully renegotiate such terms, that any such refinancing would be possible, or proprietarythat any additional financing could be obtained on terms that are favorable or acceptable to us.


Hedge and warrant transactions entered into in connection with the issuance of our Notes may affect the value of our ordinary shares.
In connection with the issuance of the Notes, we entered into hedge transactions with various financial institutions with the objective of reducing the potential dilutive effect of issuing our ordinary shares upon conversion of the Notes and the potential cash outlay from the cash conversion of the Notes. We also entered into separate warrant transactions with the same financial institutions.
In connection with the hedge and warrant transactions associated with the Notes, these financial institutions purchased our ordinary shares in secondary market transactions and entered into various over-the-counter derivative transactions with respect to our ordinary shares. These entities or their affiliates are likely to modify their hedge positions from time to time prior to conversion or maturity of the Notes by purchasing and selling our ordinary shares, other of our securities, or other instruments they may wish to use in connection with such hedging. Any of these transactions and activities could adversely affect the value of our ordinary shares and, as a result, the number and value of the ordinary shares holders will receive upon conversion of the Notes. In addition, subject to movement in the price of our ordinary shares, if the hedge transactions settle in our favor, we could be exposed to credit risk related to the other party with respect to the payment we are owed from such other party. If any of the participants in the hedge transactions is unwilling or unable to perform its obligations for any reason, we would not be able to receive the benefit of such transaction. We cannot provide any assurances as to the financial stability or viability of any of the participants in the hedge transactions.
Rating agencies may provide unsolicited ratings on the Notes or the ABL Credit Agreement that could reduce the market value or liquidity of our ordinary shares.
We have not requested a rating of the Notes or the ABL Credit Agreement from any rating agency and we do not anticipate that the Notes or the ABL Credit Agreement will be rated. However, if one or more rating agencies independently elects to rate the Notes or the ABL Credit Agreement and assigns the Notes or the ABL Credit Agreement a rating lower than the rating expected by investors, or reduces such rating in the future, the market price or liquidity of the Notes or the ABL Credit Agreement and our ordinary shares could be harmed. Should a decline in the market price of the Notes, as compared to the price of our ordinary shares occur, this may trigger the right of the holders of the Notes to convert such notes into cash and our ordinary shares, as applicable.
The terms of the ABL Credit Agreement could limit our ability to conduct our business, take advantage of business opportunities and respond to changing business, market, and economic conditions.
Our ABL Credit Agreement includes a number of significant financial and operating restrictions. For example, the ABL Credit Agreement contains financial covenants that, among other things, require us to maintain minimum liquidity and achieve certain revenue thresholds and contains provisions that restrict our ability, subject to specified exceptions, to, among other things:
make loans and investments, including acquisitions and transactions with affiliates;
create liens or other encumbrances on our assets;
dispose of assets;
enter into contingent obligations;
engage in mergers or consolidations; and
pay dividends.
Due to the terms of the ABL Credit Agreement, we may be unable to comply with these covenants, which could result in a default under the ABL Facility. In addition, these provisions may limit our ability to conduct our business, take advantage of business opportunities, and respond to changing business, market, and economic conditions. In addition, they may place us at a competitive disadvantage relative to other companies that may be subject to fewer, if any, restrictions or may otherwise adversely affect our business. Transactions that we may view as important opportunities, such as significant acquisitions, may be subject to the consent of the ABL Lenders, which consent may be withheld or granted subject to conditions specified at the time that may affect the attractiveness or viability of the transaction.
The ABL Facility involves additional risks that may adversely affect our liquidity, results of operations, and financial condition.
Availability under the ABL Credit Agreement is based on the amount of certain eligible receivables, eligible equipment, eligible inventory and eligible surgical instrumentation less specified reserves as described in Note 9 to our consolidated financial statements. As a result, our access to credit under the ABL Facility is potentially subject to fluctuations depending on the value of the eligible assets in the borrowing base as of any valuation date. Our inability to borrow additional amounts under the ABL Facility may adversely affect our liquidity, results of operations, and financial condition. In addition, all payments on our accounts receivable are required under the ABL Credit Agreement to be directed to deposit accounts under the control of the ABL Facility

lenders for application to amounts outstanding under the ABL Facility. The lenders may exercise control over such amounts when they are entitled to exercise default remedies, which may adversely affect our ability to fund our operations.
Our outstanding indebtedness under the ABL Facility bears interest at variable rates, which subjects us to interest rate risk and could increase the cost of servicing our indebtedness. The impact of increases in interest rates could be more significant for us than it would be for some other companies because of our indebtedness, thereby affecting our profitability. In the event of a default under any of our debt instruments, the lenders under the ABL Facility may terminate their commitments to lend additional money and declare all amounts outstanding thereunder to be immediately due and payable. Additionally, a default under the ABL Facility could result in a cross-default under the Notes. While an event of default is continuing under the ABL Credit Agreement the lenders thereunder may elect to increase the rates at which interest accrues. Subject to certain exceptions, amounts outstanding under the ABL Facility are secured by a senior first priority security interest in substantially all existing and after-acquired assets of our company and each borrower. Accordingly, under certain circumstances, the lenders under the ABL Facility could seek to enforce security interests in our assets securing our indebtedness under the ABL Facility, including restricting our access to collections on our accounts receivable. Any acceleration of amounts due under our ABL Credit Agreement or the exercise by the lenders thereto of their rights under the security documents, would have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the ABL Facility is subject to market deterioration or other factors that could jeopardize the counterparty obligations of one or more of the ABL Lenders, which could have an adverse effect on our business if we are not able to replace such ABL Facility or find other sources of liquidity on acceptable terms.
We likely will need additional financing to satisfy our anticipated future liquidity requirements, which may not be available on favorable terms at the time it is needed and which could reduce our operational and strategic flexibility.
Although it is difficult for us to predict our future liquidity requirements, we believe that our cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash balance of approximately $412.3 million, together with $120.0 million in availability under our ABL Facility, as of December 25, 2016 will be sufficient for at least the next 12 months to fund our working capital requirements and operations, permit anticipated capital expenditures in 2017, pay retained liabilities of the OrthoRecon business, including without limitation amounts under the MSA, and meet our anticipated contractual cash obligations in 2017. We may face liquidity challenges during the next few years in light of anticipated significant contingent liabilities and financial obligations and commitments, including among others, acquisition-related contingent consideration payments, payments related to our outstanding indebtedness, and costs and payments related to pending litigation.
In the event that we would require additional working capital to fund future operations, we could seek to acquire that through borrowings under the additional $100.0 million that may be available under the ABL Facility or additional equity or debt financing arrangements which may or may not be available on favorable terms at such time. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our shareholders may experience dilution. Additional debt financing, if available, may involve additional covenants restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt, in orderaddition to continuethose under our existing indentures and the ABL Credit Agreement. Any additional debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to commercializeus or our products. However,shareholders. If we do not have, or are not able to obtain, sufficient funds, we may not be able to obtaindevelop or enhance our products, execute our business plan, take advantage of future opportunities, or respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated customer requirements or we may have to delay development or commercialization of our products or scale back our operations.
Worldwide economic instability could adversely affect our net sales, financial condition, or results of operations.
The health of the global economy, and the credit markets and the financial services industry in particular, affects our business and operating results. While the health of the credit markets and the financial services industry appears to have stabilized, there is no assurance that it will remain stable and there can be no assurance that there will not be deterioration in the global economy. If the credit markets are not favorable, we may be unable to raise additional financing when needed or on favorable terms. Our customers may experience financial difficulties or be unable to borrow money to fund their operations which may adversely impact their ability to purchase our products or to pay for our products on a timely basis, if at all. In addition, any licenses requiredeconomic crisis could also adversely impact our suppliers’ ability to provide us with materials and components, either of which may negatively impact our business. As with our customers and vendors, these economic conditions make it more difficult for us to accurately forecast and plan our future business activities. Further, there are concerns for the overall stability and suitability of the Euro as a single currency, given the economic and political challenges facing individual Eurozone countries and Brexit. Continuing deterioration in the creditworthiness of the Eurozone countries, the withdrawal of one or more member countries from the European Union, or the failure of the Euro as a common European currency could adversely affect our sales, financial condition, or operating results.
The collectability of our accounts receivable may be affected by general economic conditions.
Our liquidity is dependent on, among other things, the collection of our accounts receivable. Collections of our receivables may be affected by general economic conditions. Although current economic conditions have not had a material adverse effect on our ability to collect such receivables, we can make no assurances regarding future economic conditions or their effect on our ability to collect our receivables, particularly from our international stocking distributors. In addition, some of our trade receivables are with national health care systems in many countries (including, but not limited to, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain). Repayment

of these receivables is dependent upon the financial stability of the economies of those countries. In light of these global economic fluctuations, we continue to monitor the creditworthiness of customers located outside of the United States. Failure to receive payment of all or a significant portion of these receivables could adversely affect our operating results.
If we are unable to continue to develop and market new products and technologies, we may experience a decrease in demand for our products, or our products could become obsolete, and our business would suffer.
We are continually engaged in product development and improvement programs, and new products represent a significant component of our sales growth rate. We may be unable to compete effectively with our competitors unless we can keep up with existing or new products and technologies in the orthopaedic market. If we do not continue to introduce new products and technologies, or if those products and technologies are not accepted, we may not be successful. Moreover, research and development efforts may require a substantial investment of time and resources before we are adequately able to determine the commercial viability of a new product, technology, material, or innovation. Demand for our products also could change in ways we may not anticipate due to evolving customer needs, changing demographics, slow industry growth rates, declines in the extremities and biologics market, the introduction of new products and technologies, evolving surgical philosophies, and evolving industry standards, among others. Additionally, our competitors’ new products and technologies may beat our products to market, may be more effective or less expensive than our products, or may render our products obsolete. Our new products and technologies also could render our existing products obsolete and thus adversely affect sales of our existing products and lead to increased expense for excess and obsolete inventory.
Our inability to maintain contractual relationships with healthcare professionals could have a negative impact on our research and development and medical education programs.
We maintain contractual relationships with respected surgeons and medical personnel in hospitals and universities who assist in product research and development and in the training of surgeons on the safe and effective use of our products. We continue to place emphasis on the development of proprietary products and product improvements to complement and expand our existing product lines as well as providing high quality training on those products. If we are unable to maintain these relationships, our ability to develop and market new and improved products and train on the use of those products could decrease, and our future operating results could be unfavorably affected. In addition, it is possible that U.S. federal and state and international laws requiring us to disclose payments or other transfers of value, such as free gifts or meals, to surgeons and other healthcare providers could have a chilling effect on these relationships with individuals or entities that may, among other things, want to avoid public scrutiny of their financial relationships with us.
Our business could suffer if the medical community does not continue to accept allograft technology.
New allograft products, technologies, and enhancements may never achieve broad market acceptance due to numerous factors, including:
lack of clinical acceptance of allograft products and related technologies;
the introduction of competitive tissue repair treatment options that render allograft products and technologies too expensive and obsolete;
lack of available third-party reimbursement;
the inability to train surgeons in the use of allograft products and technologies;
the risk of disease transmission; and
ethical concerns about the commercial aspects of harvesting cadaveric tissue.
Market acceptance also will depend on the ability to demonstrate that existing and new allograft products and technologies are attractive alternatives to existing tissue repair treatment options. To demonstrate this, we rely upon surgeon evaluations of the clinical safety, efficacy, ease of use, reliability, and cost effectiveness of our tissue repair options and technologies. Recommendations and endorsements by influential surgeons are important to the commercial success of allograft products and technologies. In addition, several countries, notably Japan, prohibit the use of allografts. If allograft products and technologies are not broadly accepted in the marketplace, we may not achieve a competitive position in the market.
If adequate levels of reimbursement from third-party payors for our products are not obtained, surgeons and patients may be reluctant to use our products and our sales may decline.
In the United States, healthcare providers who purchase our products generally rely on third-party payors, principally U.S. federally-funded Medicare, state-funded Medicaid, and private health insurance plans, to pay for all or a portion of the cost of joint reconstructive procedures and products utilized in those procedures. We may be unable to sell our products on a profitable basis if third-party payors deny coverage or reduce their current levels of reimbursement. Our sales depend largely on governmental healthcare programs and private health insurers reimbursing patients’ medical expenses. Surgeons, hospitals, and other healthcare

providers may not purchase our products if they do not receive appropriate reimbursement from third-party payors for procedures using our products. In light of healthcare reform measures, payors continue to review their coverage policies for existing and new therapies and may deny coverage for treatments that include the use of our products.
In addition, some healthcare providers in the United States have adopted or are considering bundled payment methodologies and/or managed care systems in which the providers contract to provide comprehensive healthcare for a fixed cost per person. Healthcare providers may attempt to control costs by authorizing fewer elective surgical procedures, including joint reconstructive surgeries, or by requiring the use of the least expensive implant available. Changes in reimbursement policies or healthcare cost containment initiatives that limit or restrict reimbursement for our products may cause our sales to decline.
If adequate levels of reimbursement from third-party payors outside of the United States are not obtained, international sales of our products may decline. Outside of the United States, reimbursement systems vary significantly by country. Many foreign markets have government-managed healthcare systems that govern reimbursement for medical devices and procedures. Canada, and some European and Asian countries, in particular France, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, have tightened reimbursement rates. Additionally, Brazil, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom have recently begun landmark reforms that will significantly alter their healthcare systems. Finally, some foreign reimbursement systems provide for limited payments in a given period and therefore result in extended payment periods.
Our business could be significantly and adversely impacted by healthcare reform legislation.
Comprehensive healthcare reform legislation has significantly and adversely impacted our business. For example, the Affordable Care Act imposed a 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices. Although the medical device excise tax is currently suspended until December 31, 2017, it is possible that the suspension may be lifted or expire. The Affordable Care Act also includes numerous provisions to limit Medicare spending through reductions in various fee schedule payments and by instituting more sweeping payment reforms, such as bundled payments for episodes of care and the establishment of “accountable care organizations” under which hospitals and physicians will be able to share savings that result from cost control efforts. Many of these provisions will be implemented through the regulatory process, and policy details have not yet been finalized. Various healthcare reform proposals have also emerged at the state level. We cannot predict with certainty the impact that these U.S. federal and state health reforms will have on us. However, an expansion in government’s role in the U.S. healthcare industry may lower reimbursements for products, reduce medical procedure volumes, and adversely affect our business and operating results, possibly materially.
There is an increasing trend for more criminal prosecutions and compliance enforcement activities for noncompliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) as well as for data breaches involving protected health information (PHI). In the ordinary course of our business, we may receive PHI. If we are unable to comply with HIPAA or experiences a data breach involving PHI, we could be subject to criminal and civil sanctions.
If we cannot retain our key personnel, we may be unable to manage and operate our business successfully and meet our strategic objectives.
Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to retain and motivate key managerial, scientific, sales, and technical personnel, as well as our ability to continue to attract and retain additional highly qualified personnel. We compete for such personnel with other companies, academic institutions, governmental entities, and other organizations. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in retaining our current personnel or in hiring or retaining qualified personnel in the future. Key personnel may depart because of difficulties with change or a desire not to remain with our company, especially in light of the Wright/Tornier merger. Any unanticipated loss or interruption of services of our management team and our key personnel could significantly reduce our ability to meet our strategic objectives because it may not be possible for us to find appropriate replacement personnel should the need arise. Loss of key personnel or the inability to hire or retain qualified personnel in the future could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate successfully. Further, any patentsinability on our part to enforce non-compete or proprietary rightsnon-solicitation arrangements related to key personnel who have left the business could have a material adverse effect on our business.
If a natural or man-made disaster adversely affects our manufacturing facilities or distribution channels, we could be unable to manufacture or distribute our products for a substantial amount of third partiestime, and our sales could be disrupted.
We principally rely on four manufacturing facilities, two of which are in France, one of which is in Ireland and one of which is in Arlington, Tennessee. The facilities and the manufacturing equipment we use to produce our products would be difficult to replace and could require substantial lead-time to repair or replace. For example, the machinery associated with our manufacturing of pyrocarbon in one of our French facilities is highly specialized and would take substantial lead-time and resources to replace. We also maintain a facility in Bloomington, Minnesota, a facility in Arlington, Tennessee, and a warehouse in Montbonnot, France, which contain large amounts of our inventory. Our facilities, warehouses, or distribution channels may be affected by natural or man-made disasters. For example, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster at one of our warehouses, we may lose substantial amounts of inventory that would be difficult to replace. Our manufacturing facility in Arlington, Tennessee is located near the New Madrid fault line. In the event our facilities, warehouses, or distribution channels are affected by a disaster, we would be forced to rely on, among others, third-party manufacturers and alternative warehouse space and distribution channels, which may

or may not be available, and our sales could decline. Although we believe we have adequate disaster recovery plans in place and possess adequate insurance for damage to our property and the disruption of our business from casualties, such plans and insurance may not cover such disasters or be sufficient to cover all of our potential losses and may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. Even
To the extent transition activities related to the sale of our Large Joints business divert management attention or manufacturing resources from our ongoing operations, or add additional costs to these operations, this could have an adverse effect on our business.
On October 21, 2016, we sold our Large Joints business to Corin Orthopaedics Holdings Limited (Corin). In connection with the transaction, we entered into a transitional services agreement pursuant to which we agreed to provide Corin certain support services and a supply agreement pursuant to which we agreed to manufacture certain of the large joints products for Corin, in each case for a transitional period of time. Our post-closing obligations under the transitional services agreement and supply agreement require us to dedicate substantial resources, personnel and manufacturing capacity that may add costs to our ongoing business, cause us to incur unanticipated costs and liabilities or result in manufacturing delays with respect to the production and delivery of our own products.
Our business plan relies on certain assumptions about the markets for our products, which, if incorrect, may adversely affect our business and operating results.
We believe that the aging of the general population and increasingly active lifestyles will continue and that these trends will increase the need for our extremities and biologics products. The projected demand for our products could materially differ from actual demand if our assumptions regarding these trends and acceptance of our products by the medical community prove to be incorrect or do not materialize, or if non-surgical treatments gain more widespread acceptance as a viable alternative to orthopaedic implants.
Fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates could result in declines in our reported net sales and earnings.
Because a majority of our international sales are denominated in local currencies and not in U.S. dollars, our reported net sales and earnings are subject to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. Foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations negatively impacted our net sales by $4.7 million during 2016. Operating costs related to these sales are largely denominated in the same respective currencies, thereby partially limiting our transaction risk exposure. However, cost of sales related to these sales are primarily denominated in U.S. dollars; therefore, as the U.S. dollar strengthens, the gross margin associated with our sales denominated in foreign currencies experience declines.
We have employed a derivative program using foreign currency forward contracts to mitigate the risk of currency fluctuations on our intercompany receivable and payable balances that are denominated in foreign currencies. These forward contracts are expected to offset the transactional gains and losses on the related intercompany balances. These forward contracts are not designated as hedging instruments under Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standard Codification (ASC) Section 815, Derivatives and Hedging Activities. Accordingly, the changes in the fair value and the settlement of the contracts are recognized in the period incurred. Although we address currency risk management through regular operating and financing activities, and more recently through hedging activities, these actions may not prove to be fully effective, and hedging activities involve additional risks.
We incur significant expenditures of resources to maintain relatively high levels of instruments and we historically have had a high level of inventory, which can adversely affect our operating results and reduce our cash flows.
The nature of our business requires us to maintain a certain level of instruments since in order to market effectively we often must maintain and bring our customers instrument kits. In addition, we historically have maintained extra inventory in the form of back-up products and products of different size in order to ensure that our customers have the right products when they need them. This practice has resulted in us maintaining a relatively high level of inventory, which can adversely affect our operating results and reduce our cash flows. In addition, to the extent that a substantial portion of our inventory becomes obsolete, it could have a material adverse effect on our earnings and cash flows due to the resulting costs associated with inventory impairment charges and costs required to replace such inventory.
Our quarterly operating results are subject to substantial fluctuations, and you should not rely on them as an indication of our future results.
Our quarterly operating results may vary significantly due to a combination of factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include:
demand for products, which historically has been lowest in the third quarter;
our ability to meet the demand for our products;
the level of competition;

the number, timing, and significance of new products and product introductions and enhancements by us and our competitors;
our ability to develop, introduce, and market new and enhanced versions of our products on a timely basis;
the timing of or failure to obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for products;
changes in pricing policies by us and our competitors;
changes in the treatment practices of orthopaedic surgeons;
changes in distributor relationships and sales force size and composition;
the timing of material expense- or income-generating events and the related recognition of their associated financial impact;
the number and mix of products sold in the quarter and the geographies in which they are sold;
the number of selling days;
the availability and cost of components and materials;
prevailing interest rates on our excess cash investments;
fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates;
the timing of significant orders and shipments;
ability to obtain reimbursement for our products and the timing of patients’ use of their calendar year medical insurance deductibles;
work stoppages or strikes in the healthcare industry;
changes in FDA and foreign governmental regulatory policies, requirements, and enforcement practices;
changes in accounting policies, estimates, and treatments;
restructuring, impairment, and other special charges, costs associated with our pending litigation and U.S. governmental inquiries, and other charges;
variations in cost of sales due to the amount and timing of excess and obsolete inventory charges, commodity prices, and manufacturing variances;
income tax fluctuations;
general economic factors; and
increases of interest rates, which can increase the cost of borrowings under our ABL Credit Agreement, and generally affect the level of economic activity.
We believe our quarterly sales and operating results may vary significantly in the future and period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations are not necessarily meaningful and should not be relied upon as indications of future performance. We cannot assure you that our sales will increase or be sustained in future periods or that we will be profitable in any future period. Any shortfalls in sales or earnings from levels expected by securities or orthopaedic industry analysts could have an immediate and significant adverse effect on the trading price of our ordinary shares in any given period.
We may not achieve our financial guidance or projected goals and objectives in the time periods that we anticipate or announce publicly, which could have an adverse effect on our business and could cause the market price of our ordinary shares to decline.
We typically provide projected financial information, such as our anticipated annual net sales, adjusted earnings and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. These financial projections are based on management’s then current expectations and typically do not contain any significant margin of error or cushion for any specific uncertainties or for the uncertainties inherent in all financial forecasting. The failure to achieve our financial projections or the projections of analysts and investors could have an adverse effect on our business, disappoint analysts and investors, and cause the market price of our ordinary shares to decline. Our net sales performance has been outside of our guidance range in certain quarters, which negatively impacted the market price of our ordinary shares, and could do so in the future should our results fall below our guidance range and the expectations of analysts and investors.
We also set goals and objectives for, and make public statements regarding, the timing of certain accomplishments and milestones regarding our business or operating results, such as the timing of financial objectives, new products, regulatory actions, pending litigation, and anticipated distributor and sales representative transitions. The actual timing of these events can vary dramatically

due to a number of factors, including the risk factors described in this report. As a result, there can be no assurance that we will succeed in achieving our projected goals and objectives in the time periods that we anticipate or announce publicly. The failure to achieve such projected goals and objectives in the time periods that we anticipate or announce publicly could have an adverse effect on our business, disappoint investors and analysts, and cause the market price of our ordinary shares to decline.
We are subject to additional risks in light of the material weakness that we have recently identified.
Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable and accurate financial reports and to effectively prevent fraud. The integration of combined or acquired businesses is likely to result in our systems and controls becoming increasingly complex and more difficult to manage. We devote significant resources and time to comply with the internal control over financial reporting requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. However, we cannot be certain that these measures will ensure that we design, implement, and maintain adequate control over our financial processes and reporting in the future, especially in the context of acquisitions of other businesses.
As further described in Item 9A of this report, in the course of completing our assessment of internal control over financial reporting as of December 25, 2016, management identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting related to information technology general controls. A “material weakness” is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements would not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. As a result, management has concluded that, because of this material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, our internal control over financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of December 25, 2016. If we fail to complete the remediation of this material weakness in our internal control, or after having remediated such material weakness, thereafter fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal control over financial reporting or our licenseesdisclosure controls and procedures, we could be subjected to regulatory scrutiny, civil or criminal penalties or shareholder litigation, the defense of any of which could cause the diversion of management’s attention and resources, we could incur significant legal and other expenses, and we could be required to pay damages to settle such actions if any such actions were ablenot resolved in our favor. Continued or future failure to obtain rightsmaintain adequate internal control over financial reporting could also result in financial statements that do not accurately reflect our financial condition or results of operations. There can be no assurance that we will not conclude in the future that this material weakness continues to exist or that we will not identify any significant deficiencies or other material weaknesses that will impair our ability to report our financial condition and results of operations accurately or on a timely basis. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the third party’s intellectual property, these rights may be nonexclusive, thereby givingtrading price of our competitorsordinary shares and our access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, wecapital.
We may be unable to commercialize somemaintain competitive global cash management and a competitive effective corporate tax rate.
We cannot give any assurance as to our future effective tax rate because of, our potential products or may have to cease someamong other things, uncertainty regarding the tax policies of our business operations as a resultthe jurisdictions where we operate and uncertainty regarding the level of patent infringement claims, which could severely harm our business.

In any infringement lawsuit, a third party could seek to enjoin, or prevent, us from commercializing our existing or future products, or may seek damages from us, and any such lawsuit would likely be expensive for us to defend against. Ifnet income that we lose one of these proceedings, a court or a similar foreign governing body could require us to pay significant damages to third parties, seek licenses from third parties, pay ongoing royalties, redesign or rename,will earn in those jurisdictions in the casefuture. Our actual effective tax rate may vary from this expectation and that variance may be material. Additionally, the tax laws of trademark claims, our products so that they do not infringe or prevent us from manufacturing, using or selling our products. In addition to being costly, protracted litigation to defend or prosecute our intellectual property rightsthe Netherlands and other jurisdictions in which we operate could resultchange in the future, and such changes could cause a material change in our customers or potential customers deferring or limiting their purchase or useeffective tax rate.

Our provision for income taxes will be based on certain estimates and assumptions made by management in consultation with our tax and other advisors. Our group income tax rate will be affected by, among other factors, the amount of net income earned in our various operating jurisdictions, the affected products until resolutionavailability of benefits under tax treaties, the litigation.

From timerates of taxes payable in respect of that income, and withholding taxes on dividends paid from one jurisdiction to time,the next. We will enter into many transactions and arrangements in the ordinary course of business in respect of which the tax treatment is not entirely certain. We will, therefore, make estimates and judgments based on our knowledge and understanding of applicable tax laws and tax treaties, and the application of those tax laws and tax treaties to our business, in determining our consolidated tax provision. For example, certain countries could seek to tax a greater share of income than will be provided for by us. The final outcome of any audits by taxation authorities may differ from the estimates and assumptions we receive noticesmay use in determining our consolidated tax provisions and accruals. This could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated income tax provision, financial condition, and the net income for the period in which such determinations are made.

In particular, dividends, distributions, and other intra-group payments from third parties alleging infringementour U.S. affiliates to certain of our non-U.S. subsidiaries may be subject to U.S. withholding tax at a rate of 30% unless the entity receiving such payments can demonstrate that it qualifies for reduction or misappropriationelimination of the patent, trademarkU.S. withholding tax under the income tax treaty (if any) between the United States and the jurisdiction in which the entity is organized or other intellectual property rights of third parties by us or our customers in connection with the useis a tax resident. In certain cases, treaty qualification may depend on whether at least 50% of our products. We also may otherwise become aware of possible infringement claims against us. We routinely analyze such claims and determine how best to respond in lightultimate beneficial owners are qualified residents of the circumstances existingUnited States or the treaty jurisdiction within the meaning of the applicable treaty. There can be no assurance that we will satisfy this beneficial ownership requirement at the time includingwhen such dividends, distributions, or other payments are made. Moreover, the importanceU.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may challenge our determination that the beneficial ownership requirement is satisfied. If we do not satisfy the beneficial ownership requirement, such dividends, distributions, or other payments may be subject to 30% U.S. withholding tax.

We may face potential limitations on the utilization of our U.S. tax attributes.
Following the acquisition of a U.S. corporation by a non-U.S. corporation, Section 7874 of the intellectual property rightInternal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code) can limit the ability of the acquired U.S. corporation and its U.S. affiliates to utilize U.S. tax attributes such as net operating losses and certain tax credits to offset U.S. taxable income resulting from certain transactions. Based on the limited guidance available, we currently expect that this limitation likely will not apply to us and as a result, our U.S. affiliates likely will not be limited by Section 7874 of the third party,Code in their ability to utilize their U.S. tax attributes to offset their U.S. taxable income, if any, resulting from certain specified taxable transactions. However, no assurances can be given in this regard. If, however, Section 7874 of the relative strengthCode were to apply to the Wright/Tornier merger and if our U.S. affiliates engage in transactions that would generate U.S. taxable income subject to this limitation in the future, it could take us longer to use our net operating losses and tax credits and, thus, we could pay U.S. federal income tax sooner than we otherwise would have. Additionally, if the limitation were to apply and if we do not generate taxable income consistent with our expectations, it is possible that the limitation under Section 7874 on the utilization of U.S. tax attributes could prevent our U.S. affiliates from fully utilizing their U.S. tax attributes prior to their expiration.
Future changes to U.S. tax laws could materially affect us, including our status as a non-U.S. corporation.
Under current U.S. federal income tax law, a corporation generally will be considered to be resident for U.S. federal income tax purposes in its place of organization or incorporation. Accordingly, under the generally applicable U.S. federal income tax rules, we, as a Netherlands incorporated entity, would be classified as a non-U.S. corporation (and, therefore, not a U.S. tax resident). Section 7874 of Code, however, contains specific rules (more fully discussed below) that can cause a non-U.S. corporation to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. These rules are complex and there is little or no guidance as to their application.
We currently expect we should continue to be treated as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal tax purposes, however, it is possible that the IRS could disagree with that position and assert that Section 7874 applies to treat us as a U.S. corporation. In addition, new statutory or regulatory provisions under Section 7874 or otherwise could be enacted or promulgated that adversely affect our status as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal tax purposes, and any such provisions could have retroactive application. If we were to be treated as a U.S. corporation for federal tax purposes, we would be subject to U.S. corporate income tax on our worldwide income, and the income of our foreign subsidiaries would be subject to U.S. tax when repatriated or when deemed recognized under the U.S. tax rules for controlled foreign subsidiaries. In such a case, we would be subject to substantially greater U.S. tax liability than currently contemplated. Moreover, in such a case, a non-U.S. shareholder of our company would be subject to U.S. withholding tax on the gross amount of any dividends paid by us to such shareholder.
Any such U.S. corporate income or withholding tax could be imposed in addition to, rather than in lieu of, any Dutch corporate income tax or withholding tax that may apply.
Our tax position may be adversely affected by changes in tax law relating to multinational corporations, or by increased scrutiny by tax authorities.
Recent legislative proposals have aimed to expand the scope of non-infringement or non-misappropriationU.S. corporate tax residence, limit the ability of foreign-owned corporations to deduct interest expense, and make other changes in the taxation of multinational corporations.
Additionally, the U.S. Congress, government agencies in jurisdictions where we and our affiliates do business, and the productOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development have focused on issues related to the taxation of multinational corporations. One example is in the area of “base erosion and profit shifting,” where payments are made between affiliates from a jurisdiction with high tax rates to a jurisdiction with lower tax rates. As a result, the tax laws in the United States, the Netherlands and other countries in which we and our affiliates do business could change on a prospective or products incorporatingretroactive basis, and any such changes could impact the intellectual property right at issue.

expected tax treatment for us and adversely affect our financial results.

Moreover, U.S. and non-U.S. tax authorities may carefully scrutinize companies involved or recently involved in cross-border business combinations, such as us, which may lead such authorities to assert that we owe additional taxes.
Our exposure to several tax jurisdictions may have an adverse effect on us and this may increase the aggregate tax burden on us and our shareholders.
We are subject to a large number of different tax laws and regulations in the various jurisdictions in which we operate. These laws and regulations are often complex and are subject to varying interpretations. The combined effect of the application of tax laws, including the application or disapplication of tax treaties of one or more of these jurisdictions and their interpretation by the relevant tax authorities could, under certain circumstances, produce contradictory results. We often rely on generally available interpretations of tax laws and regulations to determine the existence, scope, and level of our liability to tax in the jurisdictions in which we operate. In addition, we take positions in the course of our business with respect to various tax matters, including the compliance with the arm’s length principles in respect of transactions with related parties, the tax deductibility of interest and other costs, and the amount of depreciation or write-down of our assets that we can recognize for tax purposes. There is no

assurance that the tax authorities in the relevant jurisdictions will agree with such interpretation of these laws and regulations or with the positions taken by us. If such tax positions are challenged by relevant tax authorities, the imposition of additional taxes could increase our effective tax rate and cost of operations.
Furthermore, because we are incorporated under Dutch law, we are treated for Dutch corporate income tax purposes as a resident of the Netherlands. Based on our management structure and the current tax laws of the United States and the Netherlands, as well as applicable income tax treaties and current interpretations thereof, we expect to remain a tax resident solely of the Netherlands. If we choosewere to acquire new businesses, productsbe treated as a tax resident of a jurisdiction other than or technologies,in addition to the Netherlands, we may experience difficulty in the identification or integration of any such acquisition, and our business may suffer.

Our success depends on our ability to continually enhance and broaden our product and service offerings in response to changing customer demands, competitive pressures and technologies. Accordingly, we may pursue the acquisition of complementary businesses, products or technologies instead of developing them ourselves. We do not know if we will be able to identify or complete any acquisitions, or whether we will be able to successfully integrate any acquired business, product or technology or retain key employees. Integrating any business, product or technology we acquire could be expensive and time consuming,subject to corporate income tax in that other jurisdiction, and could disruptbe required to withhold tax on any dividends paid by us to our ongoing business and distract our management. If we are unable to integrate any acquired businesses, products or technologies effectively, our business will suffer. In addition, any amortization or charges resulting from acquisitions could negatively impact our operating results.

shareholders under the applicable laws of that jurisdiction.

Risks Relating to Our Ordinary Shares

and Jurisdiction of Incorporation

The trading volume and prices of our ordinary shares have been and may continue to be volatile, which could result in substantial losses to our shareholders.

The trading volume and prices of our ordinary shares have been and may continue to be volatile and could fluctuate widely due to factors beyond our control. During 2013,2016, the sale price of our ordinary shares ranged from $15.17 per share$15.02 to $21.87 per share, as reported by$25.50. Such volatility may be the NASDAQ Global Select Market. This may happen becauseresult of broad market and industry factors, like the performance and fluctuation of the market prices of other companies with business operations located mainly in Europe that have listed their securities in the United States.factors. In addition to market and industry factors, the price and trading volume for our ordinary shares may be highly volatile for factors specific to our own operations, including the following:

variations in our revenue,net sales, earnings, and cash flow, and in particular variations that deviate from our projected financial information;

announcements of new investments, acquisitions, strategic partnerships, or joint ventures;

announcements of new products by us or our competitors;

announcements of divestitures or discontinuance of products or assets;

changes in financial estimates by securities analysts;

additions or departures of key personnel;

sales of our equity securities by our significant shareholders or management or sales of additional equity securities by our company;

pending and potential litigation or regulatory investigations; and

fluctuations in market prices for our products.

Any of these factors may result in large and sudden changes in the volume and price at which our ordinary shares trade. In the past, shareholdersShareholders of a public company often broughtsometimes bring securities class action suits against the company following periods of instability in the market price of that company’s securities. If we were involved in a class action suit, it could divert a significant amount of our management’s attention and other resources from our business and operations, which could harm our operating results and require us to incur significant expenses to defend the suit. Any such class action suit, whether or not successful, could harm our reputation and restrict our ability to raise capital in the future. In addition, if a claim is successfully made against us, we may be required to pay significant damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or if they adversely change their recommendations regarding our ordinary shares, the market price for our ordinary shares and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our ordinary shares is influenced by research or reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more analysts who cover us downgrade our ordinary shares, the market price for our ordinary shares likely would decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which, in turn, could cause the market price or trading volume for our ordinary shares to decline.

The sale or availability for sale of substantial amounts of our ordinary shares could adversely affect their market price.

Sales of substantial amounts of our ordinary shares in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, could adversely affect the market price of our ordinary shares and could materially impair our ability to raise capital through equity offerings in the future. We cannot predict what effect, if any, market sales of securities held by our significant shareholders or any other shareholder or the availability of these securities for future sale will have on the market price of our ordinary shares.

Rights of a holder of ordinary shares are governed by Dutch law and differ from the rights of shareholders under U.S. law.
We are party to a registrationDutch public company with limited liability (naamloze vennootschap). Our corporate affairs and the rights agreement with certainof holders of our ordinary shares are governed by Dutch law and our articles of association. The rights of our shareholders and entities affiliated with our directors, including TMG Holdings Coöperatief U.A., or TMG, Vertical Fund I, L.P., Vertical Fund II, L.P. and KCH Oslo AS, which requires us to register ordinary shares held by these persons under the Securities Act, subject to certain limitations, restrictions and conditions. The market priceresponsibilities of members of our ordinary shares could decline asboard of directors may be different from those in companies governed by the laws of U.S.

jurisdictions. For example, Dutch law does not provide for a resultshareholder derivative action. In addition, in the performance of its duties, our board of directors is required by Dutch law to act in the registration and sale of or the perception that registration and sales may occur of a large numberinterest of our ordinary shares.

We are a Netherlands company and itour affiliated business, and to consider the interests of our company, our shareholders, our employees, and other stakeholders, in all cases with reasonableness and fairness. It is possible that some of these parties will have interests that are different from, or in addition to, interests of our shareholders.

U.S. investors may not be difficult for youable to obtain or enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters against us or members of our board of directors or executive officers in the United States.

officers.

We were formedare organized under the laws of the Netherlands, and, as such, the rights of holders of our ordinary shares and the civil liability of our directors are governed by Dutchthe laws of the Netherlands and our articles of association. The rights of shareholders under the laws of the Netherlands may differ from the rights of shareholders of companies incorporated in other jurisdictions. Certain of our directors and executive officers and manyA substantial portion of our assets and some of the assets of our directors are located outside of the United States. As a result, youit may not be abledifficult for investors to serveeffect service of process within the United States on us, or on such persons into enforce outside the United States or obtain or enforceany judgments fromobtained against us in U.S. courts against us or them based onin any action, including actions predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws oflaws. In addition, it may be difficult for investors to enforce rights predicated upon the United States. There is doubt as to whether Dutch courts would enforce certain civil liabilities under U.S. federal securities laws in original actions brought in courts in jurisdictions located outside the United States (including the Netherlands) or enforce claims for punitive damages.

Under our articles

The United States and the Netherlands currently do not have a treaty providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of association, we indemnifyjudgments in civil and hold our directors harmless against all claims and suits brought against them, subject to limited exceptions. There is doubt, however, as to whether U.S. courts would enforce such an indemnity provision in an action brought against onecommercial matters (other than arbitral awards). A final judgment for the payment of our directorsmoney rendered by any federal or state court in the United States which is enforceable in the United States, whether or not predicated solely upon U.S. federal securities laws, would not automatically be recognized or enforceable in the Netherlands. In order to obtain a judgment which is enforceable in the Netherlands, the party in whose favor a final and conclusive judgment of the U.S. court has been rendered will be required to file its claim with a court of competent jurisdiction in the Netherlands. Such party may submit to a Dutch court the final judgment rendered by the U.S. court. If and to the extent that the Dutch court finds that the jurisdiction of the U.S. court has been based on grounds which are internationally acceptable and that proper legal procedures have been observed, the Dutch court will generally tend to give binding effect to the judgment of the court of the United States without substantive re-examination or re-litigation on the merits of the subject matter, unless the judgment contravenes principles of public policy of the Netherlands.
There can be no assurance that U.S. investors will be able to enforce against us or members of our board of directors or officers who are residents of the Netherlands or countries other than the United States any judgments obtained in U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters, including judgments under the U.S. federal securities laws.

Rights of a holder of ordinary shares are governed by Dutch law and differ from the rights of shareholders under U.S. law.

We are a public limited liability company incorporated under Dutch law. The rights of holders of ordinary shares are governed by Dutch law and our articles of association. These rights differ from the typical rights of shareholders in U.S. corporations. For example, Dutch law does not provide for a shareholder derivative action.

We do not anticipate paying dividends on our ordinary shares.

Our articles of association prescribe that profits or reserves appearing from our annual accounts adopted by the general meeting shall be at the disposal of the general meeting. We will have power to make distributions to shareholders and other persons entitled to distributable profits only to the extent that our equity exceeds the sum of the paid and called-up portion of the ordinary share capital and the reserves that must be maintained in accordance with provisions of Dutch law or our articles of association. The profits must first be used to set up and maintain reserves required by law and must then be set off against certain financial losses. We may not make any distribution of profits on ordinary shares that we hold. The general meeting, whether or not upon the proposal of our board of directors, determines whether and how much of the remaining profit they will reserve and the manner and date of such distribution. All calculations to determine the amounts available for dividends will be based on our Dutch annual accounts, which may be different from our consolidated financial statements Ourprepared in accordance with US GAAP. Beginning with our fiscal year 2015, our statutory accounts to date have been prepared and we expect will continue to be prepared under Dutch generally accepted accounting principlesInternational Financial Reporting Standards and are deposited with the Trade Register in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We have not previously declared or paid cash dividends and we have no plan to declare or pay any dividends in the near future on our ordinary shares. We currently intend to retain most, if not all, of our available funds and any future earnings to operate and expand our business. In addition, our credit agreement contains covenants limiting our ability to pay cash dividends.

Warburg Pincus (Bermuda) Private Equity IX, L.P. and its affiliates control 32.7% of our ordinary shares, and this concentration of ownership may have an effect on transactions that are otherwise favorable to our shareholders.

Warburg Pincus (Bermuda) Private Equity IX, L.P. and its affiliates, or Warburg Pincus, beneficially own, in the aggregate, 32.7% of our outstanding ordinary shares. These shareholders could have an effect on matters requiring our shareholders’ approval, including the election of directors. This concentration of ownership also may delay, deter or prevent a change in control, and may make some transactions more difficult or impossible to complete without the support of these shareholders, regardless of the impact of this transaction on our other shareholders. In addition, our securityholders’ agreement gives TMG Holdings Coöperatief U.A., or TMG, an affiliate of Warburg Pincus, the right to designate three directors to be nominated to our board of directors for so long as TMG beneficially owns at least 25% of our outstanding ordinary shares, two directors for so long as TMG beneficially owns at least 10% but less than 25% of our outstanding ordinary shares and one director for so long as TMG beneficially owns at least 5% but less than 10% of our outstanding ordinary shares, and we have agreed to use our reasonable best efforts to cause the TMG designees to be elected.

We may experience deficiencies, including material weaknesses, in our internal control over financial reporting. Our business and our share price may be adversely affected if we do not remediate any deficiencies in our internal controls.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP. A material weakness, as defined in the standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. A report by us of a material weakness may cause investors to lose confidence in our financial statements, and the trading price of our ordinary shares may decline. If we fail to remedy any material weakness, our financial statements may be inaccurate, our access to the capital markets may be restricted and the trading price of our ordinary shares may decline.


Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM

Item 2. PROPERTIES

Properties.

Our global corporate headquarters are located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Our U.S. headquarters are located in Memphis, Tennessee, where we conduct our principal executive, research and development, sales and marketing, and administrative activities. We lease 121,000 square feet of office space with research and development facilities under a 56,000lease agreement that is renewable through 2034. Our upper extremities sales and marketing, U.S. distribution and customer service operations are located in a 54,000 square foot facility in Bloomington, Minnesota wherethat we conduct our principal executive, sales and marketing, and administrative activities, along with our U.S. distribution and customer service operations. This facility is leasedlease through 2022. Our OrthoHelixU.S. manufacturing operations which include researchconsist of a 100,000 square foot state of the art manufacturing facility in Arlington, Tennessee. We lease the manufacturing facility from the Industrial Development Board of the Town of Arlington. At this facility, we produce primarily orthopaedic implants and development, marketingsome related surgical instrumentation while utilizing lean manufacturing philosophies. We also lease a 31,000 square foot manufacturing and distribution, customer servicewarehousing facility in Franklin, Tennessee and administrative functions, are located in Medina, Ohio. Our primary U.S.conduct research and development operations are based in a 12,200an 11,000 square foot leased facility in Warsaw, Indiana.

Outside the United States, our primary manufacturing facilities are located in Montbonnot and Grenoble, France; and Macroom, Ireland. In the 112,00092,000 square foot Montbonnot campus, we conduct manufacturing and manufacturing support activities, sales and marketing, research and development, quality and regulatory assurance, distribution and administrative functions. In our 84,70073,000 square foot Macroom facility, we conduct manufacturing operations and manufacturing support, such as purchasing, engineering, and quality assurance functions. Our pyrocarbon manufacturing is performed at our 9,900 square foot facility in Grenoble, France. In addition, we maintain subsidiary sales offices and distribution warehouses in various countries, including France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Belgium, Japan, Canada, and Australia. We have an international research and development facility in Costa Rica.
We believe that our facilities are adequate and suitable for their use.

Below is a summary of our material facilities:

facilities. All of our reportable segments use the facilities described below except as otherwise indicated:

Entity

City State/
Country
 
Owned or
Leased
 Occupancy
Square
Footage
Memphis
 Lease
Expiration
Date

Tornier, Inc.

BloomingtonMinnesota,

Tennessee,
United States

LeasedOffices/Warehouse/

Distribution

56,00001/01/2022

Tornier, Inc.

WarsawIndiana,
United States
 Leased Offices/R&D
Arlington 12,200
Tennessee,
United States
 Leased 02/28/2015
U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics
Manufacturing/Warehouse/Distribution

OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc

Bloomington
 Medina
Minnesota,
United States
 Ohio, Leased
U.S. Upper Extremities
Offices/Warehouse/Distribution
Warsaw
Indiana,
United
States
 Leased Offices/Warehouse/R&D
Franklin 19,500
Tennessee,
United States
 Leased 05/31/2014
U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics
Offices/Manufacturing/Warehouse

Tornier SAS

Montbonnot France Leased Offices15,10005/31/2022
International Extremities & Biologics;
U.S. Upper Extremities
Warehouse/Distribution/Offices/R&D

Tornier SAS

MontbonnotFranceLeasedWarehouse/Distribution/

Offices

19,50005/31/2022

Tornier SAS

MontbonnotFranceLeasedOffices/R&D25,50005/31/2022

Tornier SAS

Montbonnot France Owned 51% 
International Extremities & Biologics;
U.S. Upper Extremities
Manufacturing/Offices
51,70009/03/2018

Tornier SAS

Grenoble France Leased 
International Extremities & Biologics
Manufacturing/Offices/
R&D
9,90012/31/2021

Tornier Orthopedics Ireland Limited

Macroom Ireland Leased International Extremities & Biologics Manufacturing/Offices84,70012/01/2028

ITEM

Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

A descriptionLegal Proceedings.

From time to time, we or our subsidiaries are subject to various pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings, including those that arise in the ordinary course of our business and some of which involve claims for damages that are substantial in amount. These actions and proceedings may relate to, among other things, product liability, intellectual property, distributor, commercial, and other matters. These actions and proceedings could result in losses, including damages, fines, or penalties, any of which could be substantial, as well as criminal charges. Although such matters are inherently unpredictable, and negative outcomes or verdicts

can occur, we believe we have significant defenses in all of them, are vigorously defending all of them, and do not believe any of them will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we could incur judgments, pay settlements, or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of any matter. Such developments, if any, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which applicable amounts are accrued, or on our cash flows in the period in which amounts are paid.
The actions and proceedings described in this section relate primarily to Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (WMT), an indirect subsidiary of Wright Medical Group N.V., and are not necessarily applicable to Wright Medical Group N.V. or other affiliated entities. Maintaining separate legal entities within our corporate structure is intended to ring-fence liabilities.  We believe our ring-fenced structure should preclude corporate veil-piercing efforts against entities whose assets are not associated with particular claims.
Governmental Inquiries
On August 3, 2012, we received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee requesting records and documentation relating to our PROFEMUR® series of hip replacement devices. The subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2000 to August 2, 2012. We continue to cooperate with the investigation.
Patent Litigation
On June 11, 2013, Anglefix, LLC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging that our ORTHOLOC® products infringe Anglefix’s asserted patent. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On April 14, 2014, we filed a request for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In October 2014, the Court stayed the case pending outcome of the IPR. On June 30, 2015, the Patent Office Board entered judgment in our favor as to all patent claims at issue in the IPR. Following the conclusion of the IPR, the District Court lifted the stay, and we have been continuing with our defense as to remaining patent claims asserted by Anglefix. On June 27, 2016, the Court granted in part our motion for summary judgment on Anglefix’s lack of standing and gave Anglefix 30 days to join the University of North Carolina (UNC) as a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. On July 25, 2016, Anglefix filed a motion asking the Court to accept a waiver of claims by UNC as a substitute for joining UNC as a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Court denied Anglefix’s motion, but granted leave for additional time to properly join UNC as co-plaintiff. Anglefix moved to add UNC as co-plaintiff on September 15, 2016. We opposed the motion and, on November 15, 2016, the Court allowed the motion, and subsequently directed Anglefix and UNC to file an amended complaint by January 18, 2017. We have filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the remaining patent claims asserted by Anglefix and a motion to exclude testimony by Anglefix’s technical expert. Anglefix has filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement of certain of the remaining asserted patent claims. The Court heard oral argument on those motions on January 31, 2017.
On September 23, 2014, Spineology filed a patent infringement lawsuit, Case No. 0:14-cv-03767, in the United States District Court in Minnesota, alleging that our X-REAM® bone reamer infringes U.S. Patent No. RE42,757 entitled “EXPANDABLE REAMER.”  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. In January 2015, on the deadline for service of its complaint, Spineology dismissed its complaint without prejudice and filed a new, identical complaint. We filed an answer to the new complaint with the Court on April 27, 2015. The Court conducted a Markman hearing on March 23, 2016. Mediation was held on August 11, 2016, but no agreement could be reached. The Court issued a Markman decision on August 30, 2016, in which it found all asserted product claims invalid as indefinite under applicable patent laws and construed several additional claim terms. The parties have completed fact and expert discovery with respect to the remaining asserted method claims. We have filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the remaining asserted patent claims and motions to exclude testimony from Spineology’s technical and damages experts. Spineology has filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement. The Court will hear oral argument on those motions on February 28, 2017.
On September 13, 2016, we filed a civil action, Case No. 2:16-cv-02737-JPM, against Spineology in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty against infringement, and seeking a judicial declaration of indemnification from Spineology for patent infringement claims brought against us stemming from our sale and/or use of certain expandable reamers purchased from Spineology. Spineology filed a motion to dismiss on October 17, 2016, but withdrew the motion on November 28, 2016. On December 7, 2016, Spineology filed an answer to our complaint and counterclaims, including counterclaims relating to a 2004 non-disclosure agreement between Spineology and WMT. On December 28, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims relating to that 2004 agreement. On January 4, 2017, Spineology filed a motion for summary judgment on certain claims set forth in our complaint. We intend to oppose this motion.
On March 1, 2016, Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation (MTF) filed suit against Solana and WMT in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the TenFUSE PIP product infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,432,436 entitled “Partially Demineralized Cortical Bone Constructs.” The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On May 25, 2016, we agreed to waive service of MTF’s complaint. Following a series of court-ordered extensions of time, we filed our answer to MTF’s complaint and counterclaims on December 5, 2016. We have reached a settlement in principle with MTF for an immaterial amount, which is in the process of being documented.

Subject to the provisions of the asset purchase agreement with MicroPort for the sale of the OrthoRecon business, we, as between us and MicroPort, would continue to be responsible for defense of pre-existing patent infringement cases relating to the OrthoRecon business, and for resulting liabilities, if any. All such pre-existing cases have been resolved.
Product Liability
We have been named as a defendant, in some cases with multiple other defendants, in lawsuits in which it is alleged that as yet unspecified defects in the design, manufacture, or labeling of certain metal-on-metal hip replacement products rendered the products defective. The lawsuits generally employ similar allegations that use of the products resulted in excessive metal ions and particulate in the patients into whom the devices were implanted, in most cases resulting in revision surgery (collectively, the CONSERVE® Claims) and generally seek monetary damages. We anticipate that additional lawsuits relating to metal-on-metal hip replacement products may be brought.
Because of the similar nature of the allegations made by several plaintiffs whose cases were pending in federal courts, upon motion of one plaintiff, Danny L. James, Sr., the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 8, 2012 transferred certain actions pending in the federal court system related to metal-on-metal hip replacement products to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for consolidated pre-trial management of the cases before a single United States District Court Judge (the MDL). The consolidated matter is known as In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation.
Certain plaintiffs have elected to file their lawsuits in state courts in California. In doing so, most of those plaintiffs have named a surgeon involved in the design of the allegedly defective products as a defendant in the actions, along with his personal corporation. Pursuant to contractual obligations, we have agreed to indemnify and defend the surgeon in those actions. Similar to the MDL proceeding in federal court, because the lawsuits generally employ similar allegations, certain of those pending lawsuits in California were consolidated for pre-trial handling on May 14, 2012 pursuant to procedures of California State Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (the JCCP). The consolidated matter is known as In re: Wright Hip Systems Cases, Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4710.
Every metal-on-metal hip case involves fundamental issues of law, science and medicine that often are uncertain, that continue to evolve, and which present contested facts and issues that can differ significantly from case to case. Such contested facts and issues include medical causation, individual patient characteristics, surgery specific factors, statutes of limitation, and the existence of actual, provable injury.
The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015, we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages awarded. On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order reducing the punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1 million, but otherwise denied our motion. On May 4, 2016, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments on January 26, 2017 and we are awaiting a decision of the Court.
The first bellwether trial in the JCCP, which was scheduled to commence on October 31, 2016, and subsequently rescheduled to January 9, 2017, was settled for an immaterial amount.
The first state court metal-on-metal hip trial not part of the MDL or JCCP, Donald Deline v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., et al, commenced on October 24, 2016 in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. On November 3, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in our favor. The plaintiff has appealed.
As of December 25, 2016, there were approximately 1,200 lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an additional 30 cases pending in various state courts. As of that date, we have also entered into approximately 950 so called "tolling agreements" with potential claimants who have not yet filed suit. Based on presently available information, we believe at least 350 of these lawsuits allege claims involving bilateral implants. As of December 25, 2016, there were also approximately 50 non-U.S. lawsuits pending. We believe we have data that supports the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip products. While continuing to dispute liability, we have participated in court supervised non-binding mediation in the MDL and expect to begin similar mediation in the JCCP.
On November 1, 2016, WMT entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the MDL and JCCP. Under the terms of the MSA, the parties agreed to settle 1,292 specifically identified CONSERVE, DYNASTY and LINEAGE claims that meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or subject to court-approved tolling agreements in the MDL or JCCP, for a settlement amount of $240 million.

We have received claims for personal injury against us associated with fractures of our PROFEMUR® long titanium modular neck product (Titanium Modular Neck Claims). As of December 25, 2016, there were 26 pending U.S. lawsuits and 48 pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims. These lawsuits generally seek monetary damages.
We are aware that MicroPort has recalled certain sizes of its cobalt chrome modular neck products as a result of alleged fractures. As of December 25, 2016, there were three pending U.S. lawsuits and five pending non-U.S. lawsuits against us alleging personal injury resulting from the fracture of a cobalt chrome modular neck. These lawsuits generally seek monetary damages.
In June 2015, a jury returned a $4.4 million verdict against us in a case involving a fractured hip implant stem sold prior to the MicroPort closing. This was a one-of-a-kind case unrelated to the modular neck fracture cases we have previously reported. There are no other cases pending related to this component, nor are we aware of other instances where this component has fractured. The case, Alan Warner et al. vs. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. et al., case no. BC 475958, which was filed on December 27, 2011, was tried in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District. In September 2015, the trial judge reduced the jury verdict to $1.025 million and indicated that if the plaintiff did not accept the reduced award he would schedule a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff elected not to accept the reduced damage award, and both parties have appealed. The Court has not set a date for a new trial on the issue of damages and we do not expect it will do so until the appeals are adjudicated.
Insurance Litigation
On June 10, 2014, St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Travelers), which was an excess carrier in our coverage towers across multiple policy years, filed a declaratory judgment action in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee naming us and certain of our other insurance carriers as defendants and asking the Court to rule on the rights and responsibilities of the parties with regard to the CONSERVE® Claims. This case is known as St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al. Among other things, Travelers appeared to dispute our contention that the CONSERVE® Claims arise out of more than a single occurrence thereby triggering multiple policy periods of coverage.  Travelers further sought a determination as to the applicable policy period triggered by the alleged single occurrence.  On June 17, 2014, we filed a separate lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco for declaratory judgment against certain carriers and breach of contract against the primary carrier, and moved to dismiss or stay the Tennessee action on a number of grounds, including that California is the most appropriate jurisdiction. This case is known as Wright Medical Group, Inc. et al. v. Federal Insurance Company, et al. On September 9, 2014, the California Court granted Travelers' motion to stay our California action. On April 29, 2016, we filed a dispositive motion seeking partial judgment in our favor in the Tennessee action. That motion is pending, and will be decided after the parties complete discovery regarding certain issues relating to the pending motion. On June 10, 2016, Travelers withdrew its motion for summary judgment in the Tennessee action. One of the other insurance companies in the Tennessee action has stated that it will re-file a similar motion in the future.
On October 28, 2016, WMT and Wright Medical Group, Inc. (WMG) entered into a Settlement Agreement, Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement and Policy Buyback Agreement (Insurance Settlement Agreement) with a subgroup of three insurance carriers, namely Columbia Casualty Company (Columbia), Travelers and AXIS Surplus Lines Insurance Company (collectively, the Three Settling Insurers), pursuant to which the Three Settling Insurers agreed to pay WMT an aggregate of $60 million (in addition to $10 million previously paid by Columbia) in a lump sum on or before the 30th business day after execution of the Insurance Settlement Agreement. This amount is in full satisfaction of all potential liability of the Three Settling Insurers relating to metal-on-metal hip and similar metal ion release claims, including but not limited to all claims in the MDL and the JCCP, and all claims asserted by WMT against the Three Settling Insurers in the Tennessee action described above. The amount due under the Insurance Settlement Agreement was paid in the fourth quarter of 2016.
On December 13, 2016, we filed a motion in the Tennessee action described above to include allegations of bad faith against the primary insurance carrier. The motion was subsequently amended on February 8, 2017 to add similar bad faith claims against the remaining excess carriers. That motion is pending.
On September 29, 2015, Markel International Insurance Company Ltd., as successor to Max Insurance Europe Ltd. (Max Insurance), which is the third insurance carrier in our coverage towers across multiple policy years, asserted that the terms and conditions identified in its reservation of rights will preclude coverage for the Titanium Modular Neck Claims. We strongly dispute the carrier's position, and in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of the policy, on January 18, 2016, we filed a Notice of Arbitration against Max Insurance in London, England pursuant to the provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1996.  We are seeking reimbursement, up to the policy limits of $25 million, of costs incurred in the defense and settlement of the Titanium Modular Neck Claims.
Wright/Tornier Merger Related Litigation
On November 26, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis (Tennessee Circuit Court), by a purported shareholder of WMG under the caption City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. An amended complaint in the action was filed on January 5, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants WMG, Tornier, Trooper Holdings Inc. (Holdco), Trooper Merger Sub Inc. (Merger Sub), and the

members of the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other things, that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger. The amended complaint further alleges that Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
On December 2, 2014, a separate class action complaint was filed in the Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of WMG under the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filed on January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC and the members of the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other things, that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger. The amended complaint further alleges that WMG, Tornier, Warburg Pincus LLC, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Court transferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court for consolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., CH-14-1736-1 (Consolidated Tennessee Action). In an order dated April 9, 2015, the Tennessee Chancery Court stayed the Consolidated Tennessee Action; that stay expired upon completion of the Wright/Tornier merger. On September 19, 2016, the Tennessee Chancery Court entered an agreed order, dismissing the Jacques case without prejudice.
Other
In addition to those noted above, we are subject to various other legal proceedings, product liability claims, corporate governance, and other matters which arise in Note 19the ordinary course of our consolidated financial statements included in this report is incorporated herein by reference.

business.

ITEM

Item 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.


PART II


ITEM

Item 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUTIY SECURITIES

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our ordinary shares are traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “TRNX.” "WMGI." Prior to the completion of the Wright/Tornier merger on October 1, 2015, legacy Tornier ordinary shares traded under the symbol "TRNX" while legacy Wright ordinary shares traded under the symbol "WMGI." Due to the "reverse acquisition" nature of the Wright/Tornier merger, historical information below reflects the high and low sales prices of legacy Tornier.
The following table sets forth, for the fiscal quartersperiods indicated, the high and low daily per share sales prices for our ordinary shares as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

   High   Low 

Fiscal year 2013

    

First Quarter

  $19.58    $15.95  

Second Quarter

  $19.00    $15.28  

Third Quarter

  $19.97    $15.63  

Fourth Quarter

  $21.87    $15.17  

Fiscal year 2012

    

First Quarter

  $25.84    $17.25  

Second Quarter

  $25.91    $19.21  

Third Quarter

  $23.02    $17.15  

Fourth Quarter

  $20.49    $14.53  

 High Low
Fiscal Year 2016   
First Quarter$24.43
 $15.02
Second Quarter$20.75
 $15.52
Third Quarter$25.50
 $15.85
Fourth Quarter$25.15
 $20.50
Fiscal Year 2015   
First Quarter$26.98
 $23.32
Second Quarter$27.06
 $24.45
Third Quarter$26.13
 $21.43
Fourth Quarter$23.86
 $18.03
Holders

As of February 18, 201417, 2017, there were 57357 holders of record of our ordinary shares.

Dividends

We have nevernot previously declared or paid any cash dividends on our ordinary shares. We currently intend to retain all future earnings for the operation and expansion of our business. We do not anticipate declaring or paying cash dividends on our ordinary shares in the foreseeable future. Any payment of cash dividends on our ordinary shares will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon our results of operations, earnings, capital requirements, contractual restrictions, and other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors. The credit agreement relating toAdditionally, our senior secured term loan and senior secured revolving credit facility contains covenants limitingABL Credit Agreement restricts our ability to pay cash dividends.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Company

None.

Recent Sales

We did not purchase any ordinary shares or other equity securities of Unregistered Securities

Duringour company during the fourth fiscal quarter ended December 29, 2013, we25, 2016.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
We did not issue any ordinary shares or other equity securities of our company that were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

amended, during the fourth fiscal quarter ended December 25, 2016.

Comparison of Total Shareholder Returns

The graph below compares the cumulative total shareholder returns for legacy Tornier ordinary shares from the period from February 3,December 31, 2011 to October 1, 2015, the date of the Wright/Tornier merger, and our initial public offering,combined company ordinary shares from October 1, 2015 to December 29, 201325, 2016 (our fiscal year-end), for our ordinary shares,. The graph also reflects cumulative total shareholder returns from an index composed of U.S. companies whose stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (the( NASDAQ U.S. Composite Index), and an index consisting of NASDAQ-listed companies in the surgical, medical and dental instruments and supplies industry (the NASDAQ(NASDAQ Medical Equipment Subsector), as well as an index of companies with the SIC Code 384 - Surgical, Medical, and Dental Instruments Supplies (Surgical, Medical, and Dental Instruments Index). ForTotal returns for the year ended December 29, 2013, we elected to useindices are weighted based on the NASDAQ OMX Global Indices (XCMP), which was a change from prior years when we used the indexesmarket capitalization of the Centercompanies included therein. In addition, due to the "reverse acquisition" nature of the Wright/Tornier merger and the fact that the historical financial statements of legacy Wright have replaced the historical financial statements of legacy Tornier, the graph below also includes the cumulative total shareholder returns for Research in Security Prices (CRSP). These indices were chosen because we believe they are a more appropriate benchmark against whichWMG common stock from December 31, 2011 to measure our stock performance. In compliance with Item 201(e)(4)October 1, 2015, the date of SEC Regulation S-K, we are required to show graphs under both indexes in the period of change. Wright/Tornier merger.
The graphs assumegraph assumes that $100.00 was invested on February 3,December 31, 2011, in ourlegacy Tornier/Wright Medical Group N.V. ordinary shares, legacy Wright common stock, the NASDAQ U.S. Composite Indices andIndex, the NASDAQ Medical Equipment Subsector, Indices,and the

Surgical, Medical, and Dental Instruments Supplies Index, and that all dividends were reinvested. Total returns for the NASDAQ indices are weighted based on the market capitalization of the companies included therein. Historic stock
Historical price performance of our ordinary shares is not indicative of future stockshare price performance. We do not make or endorse any prediction as to future share price performance.

   February 3,
2011
   January 1,
2012
   December 30,
2012
   December 29,
2013
 

Tornier N.V.

   100.00     99.72     90.25     101.33  

NASDAQ U.S. Composite Index XCMP (New)

   100.00     95.47     109.94     156.35  

NASDAQ Medical Equipment Subsector XCMP (New)

   100.00     95.14     107.74     151.26  

NASDAQ U.S. Composite Index CRSP

   100.00     95.44     109.95     156.26  

NASDAQ Medical Equipment Subsector CRSP

   100.00     106.18     115.96     137.80  

The above stock performance graph shall not be deemed to be “filed”

 201120122013201420152016
Legacy Tornier / Wright Medical Group N.V.$100.00
$90.50
$101.61
$141.44
$130.89
$129.50
Legacy Wright100.00
122.73
182.55
161.03
127.39

NASDAQ Stock Market (US Companies)100.00
116.00
164.10
192.92
206.33
228.06
NASDAQ Medical Equipment Index100.00
109.20
129.79
152.37
178.84
197.55
SIC Code 384 - Surgical, Medical, and Dental Instruments and Supplies100.00
85.44
114.04
149.90
128.33
159.24
Prepared by Zacks Investment Research, Inc. Used with the Securities and Exchange Commission or subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in any of Tornier’s previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate future filings, including this annual report on Form 10-K, in whole or in part, the above stock performance graph shall not be incorporated by reference into any such filings.

permission. All rights reserved. Copyright 1980-2017


ITEM

Item 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

Selected Financial Data.

The following tables set forth certain of our selected consolidated financial data as of the dates and for the years indicated. The selected consolidated financial data was derived from our consolidated financial statements. The audited consolidatedDue to the "reverse acquisition" nature of the Wright/Tornier merger, the historical financial statements as of December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, and forlegacy Wright replaced the three year period ended December 29, 2013 are included elsewhere in this report. The audited consolidatedhistorical financial statements as of January 1, 2012, January 2, 2011 and December 27, 2009 and for the years ended January 2, 2011 and December 27, 2009 are not included in this report.legacy Tornier. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for any future period. U.S. dollarsThese tables are presented in thousands, except per share data.
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 
December 27, 2015 8
 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013 December 31, 2012
Consolidated Statement of Operations:         
Net sales$690,362
 $405,326
 $298,027
 $242,330
 $214,105
Cost of sales 1
192,407
 113,622
 73,223
 59,721
 48,239
Gross profit497,955
 291,704
 224,804
 182,609
 165,866
Operating expenses:         
Selling, general and administrative 1
541,558
 424,377
 289,620
 230,785
 150,296
Research and development 1
50,514
 39,339
 24,963
 20,305
 13,905
  Amortization of intangible assets28,841
 16,754
 10,027
 7,476
 4,417
BioMimetic impairment charges
 
 
 206,249
 
Gain on sale of intellectual property 2

 
 
 
 (15,000)
Restructuring charges 3

 
 
 
 431
Total operating expenses620,913
 480,470
 324,610
 464,815
 154,049
Operating (loss) income 4
(122,958) (188,766) (99,806) (282,206) 11,817
Interest expense, net58,530
 41,358
 17,398
 16,040
 10,113
Other (income) expense, net 5
(3,148) 10,884
 129,626
 (67,843) 5,089
Loss before income taxes(178,340) (241,008) (246,830) (230,403) (3,385)
(Benefit) provision for income taxes 6
(13,406) (3,652) (6,334) 49,765
 2
Net loss from continuing operations$(164,934) $(237,356) $(240,496) $(280,168) $(3,387)
(Loss) income from discontinued operations,
net of tax 1
$(267,439) $(61,345) $(19,187) $6,223
 $8,671
Net (loss) income$(432,373) $(298,701) $(259,683) $(273,945) $5,284
Net loss from continuing operations per share basic and diluted 7:
$(1.60) $(3.66) $(4.69) $(5.82) $(0.08)
Weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding —
basic and diluted 7
102,968
 64,808
 51,293
 48,103
 39,967



 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013 December 31, 2012
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:         
Cash and cash equivalents$262,265
 $139,804
 $227,326
 $168,534
 $320,360
Restricted cash150,000
 
 
 
 
Marketable securities
 
 2,575
 14,548
 12,646
Working capital 9, 10
285,107
 352,946
 249,958
 375,901
 545,611
Total assets 9, 10, 11
2,290,586
 2,073,494
 885,068
 990,090
 937,014
Long-term liabilities 9, 11
1,129,204
 811,530
 419,204
 411,711
 337,184
Shareholders’ equity686,864
 1,055,026
 278,803
 459,714
 523,441
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013 December 31, 2012
Other Data:         
Cash flow provided by (used in) operating activities$37,824
 $(195,870) $(116,002) $(36,601) $68,822
Cash flow provided by (used in) investing activities(34,241) (15,970) 145,630
 (121,317) (1,048)
Cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities270,417
 126,862
 33,051
 6,257
 98,721
Depreciation8
55,830
 28,390
 18,582
 26,296
 38,275
Share-based compensation expense14,416
 24,964
 11,487
 15,368
 10,974
Capital expenditures 12
50,099
 43,666
 48,603
 37,530
 19,323

Our fiscal year-end is generally determined on a 52-week basis and always falls on the Sunday nearest to December 31. Every few years, it is necessary to add an extra week
1
These line items include the following amounts of non-cash, share-based compensation expense for the periods indicated:

 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013 December 31, 2012
Cost of sales$414
 $287
 $254
 $503
 $704
Selling, general and administrative13,216
 22,777
 10,149
 10,675
 6,767
Research and development786
 1,900
 1,084
 780
 368
Discontinued operations
 
 
 3,410
 3,135
2
During the year ended December 31, 2012, we recorded income of $15 million related to a sale and license back transaction for intellectual property.
3
During the year ended December 31, 2012, we recorded pre-tax charges associated with the cost improvement restructuring efforts totaling $0.4 million.
4
During the year ended December 25, 2016, we recognized: (a) $32.3 million in costs for transaction and transition costs related to the Wright/Tornier merger; (b) $37.7 million of inventory step-up amortization; (c) $4.1 million of non-cash inventory provisions associated with a product rationalization initiative; (d) $1.8 million of costs related to a legal settlement; (e) $1.3 million of costs associated with executive management changes; and (f) $0.2 million costs associated with debt refinancing. During the year ended December 27, 2015, we recognized: (a) $82.2 million in costs for due diligence, transaction, and transition costs related to the Wright/Tornier merger; (b) $14.2 million of share-based compensation acceleration; and (c) $10.3 million of inventory step-up amortization. During the year ended December 31, 2014, we recognized: (a) $2.1 million in costs associated with distributor conversions and non-competes; (b) $14.1 million in costs for due diligence, transaction, and transition costs related to the Biotech, Solana, and OrthoPro acquisitions; (c) $11.9 million in charges related to the Wright/Tornier merger; (d) $5.9 million in transition costs related to the OrthoRecon divestiture; (e) $1.2 million in costs associated with management changes; and (f) $0.9 million in costs associated with a patent dispute settlement. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we recognized: (a) $3.7 million in costs associated with distributor conversions and non-competes; (b) $12.9 million in due diligence and transaction costs related to the BioMimetic and Biotech acquisitions; (c) $21.6 million in transaction costs for the OrthoRecon divestiture; and (d) $206.2 million in BioMimetic impairment charges.
5
During the year ended December 25, 2016, we recognized: (a) a $8.7 million loss from mark-to-market adjustments on the Contingent Value Rights (CVRs) issued in connection with the BioMimetic acquisition; (b) $28.3 million gain for the mark-to-market adjustment of our derivative instruments; (c) a $12.3 million non-cash loss on extinguishment of debt to write-off unamortized debt discount and deferred financing fees associated with the partial settlement of 2017 and 2020 convertible

notes; (d) $36.6 million of non-cash interest expense related to the year making it a 53-week period in order to haveamortization of the debt discount on our year end fall on the Sunday nearest to December 31. For example, the year ended January 2, 2011 includes an extra week2017, 2020 and 2021 convertible notes; and (e) $0.5 million of operations relativecharges due to the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012. The extra week was added in the first quarter of the year ended January 2, 2011, making the first quarter 14 weeks in length, as opposedfair value adjustment to 13 weeks in length.

   Year ended 
   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
  January 1,
2012
  January 2,
2011
  December 27,
2009
 

Statement of Operations Data:

      

Revenue

  $310,959   $277,520   $261,191   $227,378   $201,462  

Cost of goods sold

   86,172    81,918    74,882    63,437    54,859  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Gross profit

   224,787    195,602    186,309    163,941    146,603  

Selling, general and administrative

   206,851    170,447    161,448    149,175    136,420  

Research and development

   22,387    22,524    19,839    17,896    18,120  

Amortization of intangible assets

   15,885    11,721    11,282    11,492    15,173  

Special charges

   3,738    19,244    892    306    1,864  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Operating loss

   (24,074  (28,334  (7,152  (14,928  (24,974

Interest income

   245    338    550    223    250  

Interest expense

   (7,256  (3,733  (4,326  (21,805  (19,917

Foreign currency transaction (loss) gain

   (1,820  (473  193    (8,163  3,003  

Loss on extinguishment of debt

   (1,127  (593  (29,475  —      —    

Other non-operating (expense) income, net

   (45  116    1,330    43    (28,461
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Loss before income taxes

   (34,077  (32,679  (38,880  (44,630  (70,099

Income tax (expense) benefit

   (2,349  10,935    8,424    5,121    14,413  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Consolidated net loss

   (36,426  (21,744  (30,456  (39,509  (55,686

Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest

   —      —      —      (695  (1,067
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net loss attributable to Tornier

   (36,426  (21,744  (30,456  (38,814  (54,619

Accretion of noncontrolling interest

   —      —      —      (679  (1,127
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net loss attributable to ordinary shareholders

  $(36,426 $(21,744 $(30,456 $(39,493 $(55,746
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Weighted-average ordinary shares outstanding:

      

basic and diluted

   45,826    40,064    38,227    27,770    24,408  

Net loss per share: basic and diluted

  $(0.79 $(0.54 $(0.80 $(1.42 $(2.28
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Balance Sheet Data:

      

Cash and cash equivalents

  $56,784   $31,108   $54,706   $24,838   $37,969  

Other current assets

   169,741    166,210    144,166    148,376    133,179  

Total assets

   705,426    654,227    511,700    491,178    520,187  

Total long-term debt, less current portion

   67,643    115,457    21,900    109,728    92,424  

Total liabilities

   179,618    218,148    110,240    220,939    277,140  

Noncontrolling interest

   —      —      —      —      23,259  

Total shareholders’ equity

   525,808    436,079    401,460    270,239    219,788  

Other Financial Data:

      

Net cash provided by operating activities

  $24,982   $14,431   $23,166   $2,889   $2,291  

Net cash used in investing activities

   (47,713  (125,795  (29,475  (22,853  (31,104

Net cash provided by financing activities

   47,023    86,666    39,110    7,427    44,857  

Depreciation and amortization

   36,566    30,232    28,107    27,038    29,732  

Capital expenditures

   (34,630  (23,290  (26,333  (20,525  (23,448

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents

   1,384    1,100    (2,933  (594  577  

Note: The results included above as of December 30, 2012 and forcontingent consideration. During the year ended December 30,27, 2015, we recognized: (a) a $7.6 million gain from mark-to-market adjustments on the CVRs issued in connection with the BioMimetic acquisition and (b) $9.8 million gain for the mark-to-market adjustment of our derivative instruments. During the year ended December 31, 2014, we recognized: (a) approximately $125 million from mark-to-market adjustments on the CVRs issued in connection with the BioMimetic acquisition; (b) $2.0 million of charges for the mark-to-market adjustment of our derivative instruments; and (c) $1.8 million of charges due to the fair value adjustment to contingent consideration associated with our acquisition of WG Healthcare. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we recognized a $7.8 million gain related to the previously held investment in BioMimetic. During the year ended December 31, 2012, includewe recognized: (a) $2.7 million for the resultswrite-off of OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc. from October 4, 2012 (dateunamortized deferred financing fees associated with the termination of acquisition) toour senior credit facility; (b) the redemption of approximately $25 million of our 2014 convertible notes; and (c) a $1.1 million of charges for the mark-to-market adjustment of our derivative instruments. During the year ended December 30, 2012.

31, 2011, we recognized $4.1 million for the write-off of pro-rata unamortized deferred financing fees and transaction costs associated with the tender offer for our convertible notes completed during 2011.
6
During the year ended December 25, 2016, we recognized a $3.1 million interest and income tax benefit related to the settlement of an IRS audit. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we recognized a $119.6 million tax valuation allowance recorded against deferred tax assets in our U.S. jurisdiction due to recent operating losses.
7
The 2014, 2013, and 2012 weighted-average shares outstanding and net loss per share amounts were converted in 2015 to meet post-merger valuations as described within Note 13. The 2015 weighted-average shares outstanding includes additional shares issued on October 1, 2015 as part of the Wright/Tornier merger as described in Note 13.
8
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business. (See Note 4).
9
The prior year deferred tax balances were reclassified to account for early adoption of ASU 2015-17.
10
The prior period amounts have been adjusted to reflect balances associated with our Large Joints business, as these amounts were classified as held for sale at December 27, 2015 (See Note 4).
11
The prior period debt issuance costs were reclassified to account for adoptions of ASU 2015-03 and ASU 2015-15 (See Note 2).
12
During the year ended December 31, 2014, our capital expenditures included $9.4 million related to the expansion of our manufacturing facility in Arlington, Tennessee.


ITEM

Item 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

You should read theManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following management's discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations togetherdescribes the principal factors affecting the results of our operations, financial condition, and changes in financial condition, as well as our critical accounting estimates.
On October 1, 2015, we became Wright Medical Group N.V. following the merger of Wright Medical Group, Inc. with Tornier N.V. Because of the structure of the merger and the governance of the combined company immediately post-merger, the merger was accounted for as a "reverse acquisition" under US GAAP, and as such, legacy Wright was considered the acquiring entity for accounting purposes. Therefore, legacy Wright’s historical results of operations replaced legacy Tornier’s historical results of operations for all periods prior to the merger. More specifically, the accompanying consolidated financial statements for periods prior to the merger are those of legacy Wright and its subsidiaries, and for periods subsequent to the notes thereto included elsewheremerger also include legacy Tornier and its subsidiaries.
During the first quarter of 2016, our management, including our chief executive officer, who is our chief operating decision maker, began managing our operations as four operating business segments: U.S. Lower Extremities and Biologics, U.S. Upper Extremities, International Extremities and Biologics, and Large Joints. We determined that each of these operating segments represented a reportable segment.
On October 21, 2016, pursuant to a binding offer letter dated as of July 8, 2016, we, Corin Orthopaedics Holdings Limited (Corin), and certain other entities related to us entered into a business sale agreement and simultaneously completed and closed the sale of our Large Joints business. The financial results of our Large Joints business, including costs associated with corporate employees and infrastructure transferred as a part of the sale, are reflected within discontinued operations for all periods presented, unless otherwise noted. Further, all assets and associated liabilities transferred to Corin were classified as assets and liabilities held for sale in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 27, 2015.
On January 9, 2014, legacy Wright completed the sale of its hip and knee (OrthoRecon) business to MicroPort Scientific Corporation (MicroPort). The financial results of the OrthoRecon business are also reflected within discontinued operations for all periods presented, unless otherwise noted.
References in this section to "we," "our" and "us" refer to Wright Medical Group N.V. and its subsidiaries after the Wright/Tornier merger and Wright Medical Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries before the merger. Beginning in 2015 as a result of the Wright/Tornier merger, our fiscal year-end is generally determined on a 52-week basis and runs from the Monday nearest to the 31st of December of a year, and ends on the Sunday nearest to the 31st of December of the following year. Every few years, it is necessary to add an extra week to the year making it a 53-week period. References in this report and other financial information included in this report. The following discussion may contain predictions, estimates and otherforward-looking statements that involveto a number of risks and uncertainties, including those discussed under “Special Note Regarding Forward Looking Statements,” “Part 1- Item 1A. Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report. These risks could cause our actual resultsparticular year generally refer to differ materially from any future performance suggested below.

the applicable fiscal year. Accordingly, references to “2016” or “the year ended December 25, 2016” mean the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016.

Executive Overview

Company Description.We are a global medical device company focused on providingextremities and biologics products. We are committed to delivering innovative, value-added solutions to surgeons that treat musculoskeletal injuriesimproving quality of life for patients worldwide, and disordersare a recognized leader of surgical solutions for the upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand), lower extremities (foot and ankle) and biologics markets, three of the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, anklefastest growing segments in orthopaedics.
Our global corporate headquarters are located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We also have significant operations located in Memphis, Tennessee (U.S. headquarters, research and foot, whichdevelopment, sales and marketing administration, and administrative activities); Bloomington, Minnesota (upper extremities sales and marketing and warehousing operations); Arlington, Tennessee (manufacturing and warehousing operations); Franklin, Tennessee (manufacturing and warehousing operations); Montbonnot, France (manufacturing and warehousing operations); and Macroom, Ireland (manufacturing). In addition, we refer to as “extremity joints.” We sell to this surgeon base a broad line of joint replacement, trauma, sports medicinehave local sales and biologic products to treat extremity joints. In certain international markets, we also offer joint replacement products for the hipdistribution offices in Canada, Australia, Asia, Latin America, and knee.

We have had a tradition of innovation, intense focus on science and education and a commitment to the advancement of orthopaedics in the pursuit of improved clinical outcomes for patients since our founding over 70 years ago in France by René Tornier. Our history includes the introduction of the porous orthopaedic hip implant, the application of the Morse taper, which is a reliable means of joining modular orthopaedic implants, and, more recently, the introduction of the stemless shoulder both in Europe and in a U.S. clinical trial. This track record of innovation based on science and education stems from our close collaboration with leading orthopaedic surgeons and thought leaders throughout the world.

We believe we are differentiated in the marketplace by our strategic focus on extremities, our full portfolio of upper and lower extremity products, and our extremity-focused sales organization. Europe.

We offer a broad product portfolio of approximately 180 extremities products and over 95 extremities20 biologics products that are designed to provide solutions to our surgeon customers, with the goal of improving clinical outcomes and the “quality of life” for their patients. Our product portfolio consists of the following product categories:
Upper extremities, which include joint implants and bone fixation devices for the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand;
Lower extremities, which include joint implants and bone fixation devices for the foot and ankle;
Biologics, which include products used to support treatment of damaged or diseased bone, tendons, and soft tissues or to stimulate bone growth; and
Sports medicine and other, which include products used across several anatomic sites to mechanically repair tissue-to-tissue or tissue-to-bone injuries and other ancillary products.

Our sales and distribution system in the United States currently consists of 68 geographic sales territories that are staffed by approximately 500 direct sales representatives and 24 independent sales agencies or distributors. These sales representatives and independent sales agencies and distributors are generally aligned to selling either our upper extremities products or lower extremities products, but, in some cases, certain agencies or direct sales representatives sell products from both our upper and lower extremities product portfolios in their territories. Internationally, we utilize several distribution approaches that are tailored to the needs and requirements of each individual market. Our international sales and distribution system currently consists of 15 direct sales offices and approximately 90 distributors that sell our products in over 50 countries, with principal markets outside the United States in Europe, Asia, Canada, Australia, and Latin America. Our U.S. sales accounted for 73.5% of total net sales in 2016.
Principal Products. We have focused our efforts into growing our position in the high-growth extremities and biologics markets. We believe a more active and aging patient population with higher expectations regarding “quality of life,” an increasing global awareness of extremities and biologics solutions, improved clinical outcomes as a result of the use of extremitiessuch products, and technological advances resulting in specific designs for extremitiessuch products that simplify procedures and address unmet needs for early interventions, and the growing need for revisions and revision related solutions will drive the market for extremities and biologics products.

The extremities market is one of the fastest growing market segments within orthopaedics, with annual growth rates of 7-10%. We manage our businessbelieve major trends in one reportable segment that includes the design, manufacture, marketingextremities market include procedure-specific and sales of orthopaedic products. Our principal products are organizedanatomy-specific devices, locking plates, and an increase in four major categories: upper extremitytotal ankle replacement or arthroplasty procedures. Upper extremities reconstruction involves implanting devices to replace, reconstruct, or fixate injured or diseased joints and trauma, lower extremitybones in the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand. It is estimated that approximately 60% of the upper extremities market is in total shoulder replacement or arthroplasty implants. We believe major trends in the upper extremities market include next-generation joint arthroplasty systems, bone preserving solutions, virtual planning systems, and revision of failed previous shoulder replacements in older patients. Lower extremities reconstruction involves implanting devices to replace, reconstruct, or fixate injured or diseased joints and trauma, sports medicine and biologics, and large joints and other. Our upper extremity joints and trauma products include joint replacement and bone fixation devices for the shoulder, hand, wrist and elbow. Our lower extremity joints and trauma products, which include our OrthoHelix portfolio, include joint replacement and bone fixation devices forbones in the foot and ankle. A large segment of the lower extremities market is comprised of plating and screw systems for reconstructing and fusing joints or repairing bones after traumatic injury. We believe major trends in the lower extremities market include the use of external fixation devices in diabetic patients, total ankle arthroplasty, advanced tissue fixation devices, and biologics. New technologies have been introduced into the lower extremities market in recent years, including next-generation total ankle replacement systems. We believe that market adoption of total ankle replacement, which currently represents approximately 8% of the U.S. foot and ankle device market, will result in significant future growth in the lower extremities market.
Our sports medicine principal lower extremities products include the INBONE® and INFINITY® Total Ankle Replacement Systems, both of which can be used with our PROPHECY® Preoperative Navigation Guides, which combine computer imaging with a patient’s CT scan, and are designed to provide alignment accuracy while reducing surgical steps. Our lower extremities products also include the CLAW® II Polyaxial Compression Plating System, the ORTHOLOC® 3Di Reconstruction Plating System, the PhaLinx® System used for hammertoe indications, PRO-TOE® VO Hammertoe System, the DARCO® family of locked plating systems, the VALOR® ankle fusion nail system, and the Swanson line of toe joint replacement products. We expect to commercially launch our most recent total ankle replacement product, the INVISION™ Total Ankle Revision System, in the third quarter of 2017.
Our principal upper extremities products include the AEQUALIS ASCEND® and SIMPLICITI® total shoulder replacement systems, the AEQUALIS® REVERSED II™ reversed shoulder system, and the AEQUALIS ASCEND® FLEX™ convertible shoulder system. SIMPLICITI® is the first minimally invasive, ultra-short stem total shoulder available in the United States. We believe SIMPLICITI® allows us to expand the market to include younger patients that historically have deferred these procedures.  In December 2016, we received FDA 510(k) clearance of our AEQUALIS® PERFORM™ REVERSED Glenoid System, our first reverse augmented glenoid. Other principal upper extremities products include the EVOLVE® radial head prosthesis for elbow fractures, the EVOLVE® Elbow Plating System, RAYHACK® osteotomy system, and the MICRONAIL® intramedullary wrist fracture repair system.
Our biologic products use both biological tissue-based and synthetic materials to allow the body to regenerate damaged or diseased bone and to repair damaged or diseased soft tissue. The newest addition to our biologics product category includes products used across several anatomic sites to mechanically repair tissue-to-tissue or tissue-to-bone injuries, inportfolio is AUGMENT® Bone Graft, which is based on recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (rhPDGF-BB), a synthetic copy of one of the casebody’s principal healing agents.  FDA approval of sports medicine, or to support or induce remodeling and regeneration of tendons and ligaments, in the case of biologics. Our large joints and other products include hip and knee joint replacement implants and ancillary products.

In the United States, we market and sell a broad offering of products, including products for upper extremity joints and trauma, lower extremity joints and trauma, and sports medicine and biologics. We do not actively market products for the hip or knee, which we refer to as “large joints,”AUGMENT® Bone Graft in the United States althoughfor ankle and/or hindfoot fusion indications occurred during the third quarter of 2015.  Prior to FDA approval, this product was available for sale in Canada for foot and ankle fusion indications and in Australia and New Zealand for hindfoot and ankle fusion indications.  The AUGMENT® Bone Graft product line was acquired from BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. (BioMimetic) in March 2013. Our other principal biologics products include the GRAFTJACKET® line of soft tissue repair and containment membranes, the ALLOMATRIX® line of injectable tissue-based bone graft substitutes, the PRO-DENSE® Injectable Graft, the OSTEOSET® synthetic bone graft substitute, and the PRO-STIM® Injectable Inductive Graft.

Supplemental Non-GAAP Pro Forma Information. Due to the significance of the legacy Tornier business that is not included in our results of operations for the majority of the year ended December 27, 2015 and to supplement our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with US GAAP, we have clearanceuse certain non-GAAP financial measures, including combined pro forma

net sales. Our non-GAAP financial measures are not in accordance with, or an alternative for, GAAP measures and may be different from non-GAAP financial measures used by other companies. In addition, our non-GAAP financial measures are not based on any comprehensive or standard set of accounting rules or principles. Accordingly, the calculation of our non-GAAP financial measures may differ from the FDAdefinitions of other companies using the same or similar names limiting, to sell certain large joint products. We are insome extent, the processusefulness of completing our strategic initiative to transition our U.S. sales organization from a network of independent sales agencies that sold our full product portfolio to a combination of direct sales teams and independent sales agencies that are individually focused on selling either upper extremity products or lower extremity products across the territories that they serve. This transition caused disruption in our U.S. business in 2013 and this disruption is expected to continue throughout 2014 as we continue to transition our sales representatives to focus on either upper or lower extremities products, optimize our territory structures, hire additional sales representatives to fill territories and educate and train our sales teams. We ultimately believe that this strategy will position us to leverage our sales force and broad product portfolio toward our goal of achieving above market extremities revenue growth and margin expansion over the long term by allowing us to increase the product proficiency of our sales representatives to better serve our surgeon customers and to increase and optimize our selling opportunities by improving our overall procedure coverage and providing access to new specialists, general surgeons and accounts.

In international markets, we sell our full product portfolio, including large joints, and we utilize several distribution approaches that are tailored to the needs and requirements of each individual market. Our international sales and distribution system currently consists of 13 direct sales offices and approximately 25 distributors that sell our products in approximately 45 countries.

2013 Executive Summary

During 2013, we believe we made significant progress toward our three main strategic initiatives:

The transition of our U.S. sales organization. We spent most of 2013 transitioning our U.S. sales organization from a network of independent sales agencies that sold our full product portfolio to a combination of direct sales teams and independent sales agencies that are individually focused on selling either upper extremity products or lower extremity products across the territories that they serve. Over 85% of our U.S. revenues is now under a new agreement or transitioned to a direct sales model and over 55% of our U.S. revenues are served by direct sales teams. As we move into 2014, we expect to continue and complete the transition of our sales representatives to focus on either upper or lower extremities products, optimize our territory structures, hire additional sales representatives to fill territories and educate and train our sales teams.such measures for comparison purposes. We believe that non-GAAP financial measures have limitations in that they do not reflect all of the transitionamounts associated with our results of operations as determined in accordance with GAAP and that these measures should only be used to evaluate our results of operations in conjunction with the corresponding GAAP measures. See table under "Results of Operations" for a reconciliation of our non-GAAP combined pro forma net sales for the year ended December 27, 2015 to our net sales for such period as calculated in accordance with US GAAP.
Significant Business Developments. On December 23, 2016, we, together with WMG and certain of our other wholly-owned U.S. sales organizationsubsidiaries, entered into a Credit, Security and Guaranty Agreement (ABL Agreement) with Midcap Financial Trust, as administrative agent (Agent) and a lender and the additional lenders from time to time party thereto. The ABL Agreement provides for a $150.0 million senior secured asset based line of credit, subject to the satisfaction of a borrowing base requirement (ABL Facility). The ABL Facility may be increased by up to $100.0 million upon our request, subject to the consent of the Agent and each of the other lenders providing such increase and the satisfaction of customary conditions. As of December 25, 2016, we had $30 million in borrowings outstanding under the ABL Facility. See Note 9 to our consolidated financial statements for additional discussion related to the ABL Facility and our other debt.
On November 1, 2016, WMT entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the metal-on-metal hip replacement product liability litigation pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the MDL) and the California State Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (the JCCP). Under the terms of the MSA, the parties agreed to settle 1,292 specifically identified claims associated with CONSERVE®, DYNASTY® and LINEAGE® products that meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or subject to court-approved tolling agreements in the MDL or JCCP, for a settlement amount of $240 million.  As of December 25, 2016, our accrual for metal-on-metal claims totaled $256.7 million, of which $242.8 million is included in our consolidated balance sheet within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities” and $13.9 million is included within “Other liabilities.”  See Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements for additional discussion regarding the MSA and our accrual methodologies for the metal-on-metal hip replacement product liability claims.
During the fourth quarter of 2016, WMT deposited $150.0 million into a restricted escrow account to secure its obligations under the MSA. All individual settlements under the MSA will position usbe funded first from the escrow account and then, if all funds held in the escrow account have been exhausted, directly by WMT. As of December 25, 2016, $150.0 million was in the restricted escrow account, and therefore, considered restricted cash under U.S. GAAP. See Note 16 and Note 17 to leverage our sales forcethe consolidated financial statements for further discussion regarding the MSA, the metal-on-metal hip litigation and broad product portfolio toward our goalthe funding for such claims.
On October 28, 2016, WMT and Wright Medical Group, Inc. (Wright Entities) entered into a Settlement Agreement, Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement and Policy Buyback Agreement (Insurance Settlement Agreement) with a subgroup of achieving above market extremities revenue growththree insurance carriers, namely Columbia Casualty Company (Columbia), Travelers and margin expansion overAXIS Surplus Lines Insurance Company (collectively, the long term.

Three Settling Insurers), pursuant to which the Three Settling Insurers agreed to pay WMT an aggregate of $60 million (in addition to $10 million previously paid by Columbia) in a lump sum on or before the 30th business day after execution of the Insurance Settlement Agreement. This amount is in full satisfaction of all potential liability of the Three Settling Insurers relating to metal-on-metal hip and similar metal ion release claims, including but not limited to all claims in the MDL and the JCCP, and all claims asserted by WMT against the Three Settling Insurers in the Tennessee action described in the section entitled “Legal Proceedings.”  The integration of OrthoHelix. We acquired OrthoHelixamount due to the Wright Entities under the Insurance Settlement Agreement was paid in the fourth quarter of 20122016. During the year ended December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, we received insurance proceeds of $65.6 million and $6.1 million, respectively, related to strengthenmetal-on-metal hip and similar metal ion release claims. Additionally, during the year ended December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, our product portfolioinsurance carriers paid $1.3 million and $3.3 million, respectively, directly to claimants in connection with various metal-on-metal settlements.  Management has recorded an insurance receivable of lower extremity products and gain access$8.7 million for the probable recovery of spending from the remaining carriers (other than the Three Settling Carriers) in excess of our retention for a single occurrence. See Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements for additional discussion regarding the Insurance Settlement Agreement.
On October 21, 2016, pursuant to a dedicated lower extremities sales force that would allow a move to dedicated upperbinding offer letter, dated as of July 8, 2016, we completed and lower extremities sales representation. The 2013 transitionclosed the sale of our U.S. sales organization was closely connectedbusiness operations operating under the Large Joints operating segment (the Large Joints business) to Corin for approximately €29.7 million in cash, less approximately €10.7 million for net working capital adjustments. All historical operating results for the integration of manyLarge Joints business, including costs associated with corporate employees and infrastructure transferred as a part of the historical OrthoHelix distributors intosale, are reflected within discontinued operations in our overall U.S. lower extremities sales organization. During 2013,consolidated statements of operations. Further, all assets and associated liabilities transferred to Corin were classified as assets and liabilities held for sale in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 27, 2015. See Note 4 to our consolidated financial statements for additional discussion related to our discontinued operations.

In May 2016, we issued new convertible debt, resulting in net cash proceeds of approximately $237.5 million (including the settlement and issuance of associated hedging transactions, and the exchange of certain previously outstanding convertible debt). See Note 6 and Note 9 to our consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding these transactions.
On September 29, 2015, legacy Wright's five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services expired, and on January 27, 2016, we received CE Marknotification from the OIG-HHS that the term of the CIA has concluded.
On September 1, 2015, FDA approval to sell the majority of our OrthoHelix products internationally and have since begun to selectively launch these productsAUGMENT® Bone Graft in certain markets, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom. In addition,States for ankle and/or hindfoot fusion indications was obtained, and we completedcommercially launched the integration ofproduct in the OrthoHelix sales, marketing, and research and development activities into our global teams.United States shortly thereafter.

The launch of our Aequalis Ascend Flex. We completedOn June 16, 2014, legacy Wright announced the limited user release andfull U.S. commercial launch of the Aequalis Ascend FlexINFINITY® Total Ankle Replacement System, which complements our ankle portfolio and allows us to offer a total ankle replacement system that addresses the continuum of care for end-stage ankle arthritis patients.
On January 30, 2014, legacy Wright completed the acquisition of Solana Surgical, LLC, and on February 5, 2014, completed the acquisition of OrthoPro, L.L.C., both privately-held, high-growth extremities companies. These acquisitions added complementary extremities product portfolios to further accelerate growth opportunities in our global extremities business. Legacy Wright acquired 100% of the outstanding equity of Solana for approximately $48 million in cash and $41.4 million of WMG common stock. Legacy Wright acquired 100% of OrthoPro's outstanding equity for approximately $32.5 million in cash.
On January 9, 2014, legacy Wright completed the sale of its OrthoRecon business to MicroPort. The financial results of the OrthoRecon business have been reflected within discontinued operations for all periods presented, unless otherwise noted.
Financial Highlights. Net sales increased 70.3% totaling $690.4 million in 2016, compared to $405.3 million in 2015, primarily due to the impact of the Wright/Tornier merger. Net sales in 2016 increased 12.2% as compared to 2015 non-GAAP combined pro forma net sales (pro forma net sales), primarily driven by 14.3% growth in our U.S. businesses.
Our U.S. net sales increased by $207.7 million, or 69.3%, in 2016 as compared to 2015, primarily due to the impact of the Wright/Tornier merger. Our U.S. sales in 2016 increased 14.3% as compared to 2015 combined pro forma net sales, driven primarily by the continued success of our INFINITY® total ankle replacement system, and the ongoing rollouts of the SIMPLICITI® shoulder system, AEQUALIS ASCEND® FLEXTM convertible shoulder system during 2013. We believe that the Aequalis Ascend Flex has further strengthened our market-leading shoulder product portfolio by providing surgeons with a convertible pressed-fit reversed solution, while also expanding our addressable market for shoulder products by filling what we believe was a previous gap in this portfolio. We completed the training and education of over 150 surgeons on the Aequalis Ascend Flex during 2013 and plan to increase the number of instrument sets available to the field during 2014, both in the United States and internationally, and continue to train surgeons to further increase market acceptance.AUGMENT® Bone Graft product. 

Although we believe we made great strides in our business and strategic initiatives during 2013, our financial performance was below our expectations set at the beginning of 2013, primarily as a result of the disruption experienced in our U.S. business driven by the transition of our U.S. sales organization. The following are a few highlights of our 2013 financial and operating performance:

Our revenue grew by $33.4international net sales increased $77.3 million, or 12.0%73.3%, to $311.0 million in 2013 from $277.5 million in 2012 primarily2016 as a result of our acquisition of OrthoHelix, and to a lesser extent, an increase in upper extremity joints and trauma revenue primarily as a result of the continued increase in sales of our Aequalis Ascend shoulder products, including the Aequalis Ascend Flex that was launched in the third quarter of 2013. Our 2013 revenue, however, was negatively impacted by disruption in our U.S. sales channel due to our strategic initiative to establish separate sales channels that are individually focused on selling either upper extremity products or lower extremity products across the territories that they serve.

Our gross margins improved to 72.3% in 2013 compared to 70.5% in 2012. Our 2013 gross margin results improved due to product cost improvements, production efficiencies and the insourcing of certain products. Additionally, our gross margin included $5.9 million of inventory fair value adjustments as a result of our acquisition of OrthoHelix and other smaller acquisitions, while our 2012 gross margin results included $2.0 million of fair value adjustments related to acquired inventory and $3.0 million product rationalization charges2015, primarily due to product overlap with the products acquiredimpact of the Wright/Tornier merger. Our international net sales in 2016 increased 6.6% as compared to 2015 combined pro forma net sales, driven primarily by 20.1% combined pro forma net sales growth in Australia and 13.7% combined pro forma net sales growth in Canada, which was partially offset by a $4.7 million unfavorable impact from OrthoHelix.foreign currency exchange rates.

Although we incurred aIn 2016, our net loss of $36.4from continuing operations totaled $164.9 million, for 2013 compared to a net loss from continuing operations of $21.7$237.4 million for 2012, our operatingin 2015. This decrease in net loss decreased to $24.1 million for 2013 from $28.3 million for 2012continuing operations was primarily driven by higher revenuesthe following:
$64.1 million decrease in transaction and improved gross margins,transition expenses, including the $14.2 million charge in 2015 for share-based compensation acceleration due to the Wright/Tornier merger;
$46.6 million increase in profitability of our U.S. Lower Extremities and Biologics segment driven by leverage on increased sales, as operating expenses grew at a lower rate than net sales;
$43.8 million increase in profitability of our U.S. Upper Extremities segment driven almost entirely by the acquired Tornier business;
$11.4 million increase in profitability of our International Extremities and Biologics segment driven almost entirely by the acquired Tornier business; and
$14.0 million decrease in other (income) expense, net, primarily driven by a $12.3 million charge in 2016 as compared to a $25.1 million charge in 2015 for the write-off of pro-rata unamortized deferred financing fees and debt discount.
The favorable changes in net loss from continuing operations were partially offset by higher selling, general and administrativeby:
$65.4 million of incremental corporate expenses, primarily due to our U.S.expenses from the acquired Tornier business;
$27.4 million of incremental cost of sales organization transition, higher intangiblefor the non-cash amortization related to our recent acquisitions and the negative impact of the medical device excise tax.inventory step-up fair value adjustment associated with the Wright/Tornier merger; and

$17.2 million of incremental interest expense, primarily due to cash interest and non-cash amortization of debt discount and deferred financing charges associated with the 2021 Notes that were issued in the second quarter of 2016.
Opportunities and Challenges. With the sale of our Large Joints business to Corin, we believe we are now well positioned and completely focused on accelerating growth in our extremities and biologics business. We intend to continue to leverage the global

strengths of both our legacy Wright and legacy Tornier product brands as a pure-play extremities and biologics business. We believe our leadership has been and will continue to be further enhanced by the FDA approval of AUGMENT® Bone Graft, a biologic solution that adds additional depth to one of the most comprehensive extremities product portfolios in the industry, as well as provides a platform technology for future new product development. We believe the highly complementary nature of legacy Wright’s and legacy Tornier’s businesses gives significant diversity and scale across a range of geographies and product categories. We believe we are differentiated in the marketplace by our strategic focus on extremities and biologics, our full portfolio of upper and lower extremities and biologics products, and our specialized and focused sales organization.
We are highly focused on ensuring that no business momentum is lost as we continue to integrate legacy Wright and legacy Tornier. Since the merger and through the end of 2016, we have completed the acquisitions of certain stocking distributors in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom and certain U.S. distributors and independent sales agencies during 2013 for an aggregate purchase price of $9.9 million, plus an additional $2.5 million in contingent consideration to be paid over the next two years.

We completed an underwritten public offering in May 2013 pursuant to which we sold 5.2 million ordinary shares and certain shareholders sold 2.9 million ordinary shares at a public offering price of $16.15 per share, resulting in net proceeds to us of $78.7 million, after the underwriters’ discount and commissions and offering expenses.

We used $50.5 million of the net proceeds from our May 2013 public offering to pay off our $40.0 million Euro denominated term loan and a portionintegration of our U.S. dollar denominated term loan.

We recorded $3.7 million in special charges in 2013, which were primarily comprised of $7.1 million of integrationglobal sales force, co-located and distributor transition costs and $1.2 million of legal settlements in the United States, partially offset by a $5.1 million reversal of a contingent consideration liability related to our OrthoHelix acquisition due to the under-performance of our legacy lower extremity products versus established revenue targets. We expect to record special charges in 2014 between $3.9 and $5.6 million primarily related to our ongoing integration of OrthoHelix, expected completion of our U.S. sales transitions and OrthoHelix restructuring efforts.

We began and made significant progress on the implementation of anconsolidated into one enterprise resource planning (ERP) system in three of our top five international markets and completed a substantial number of other integration activities, while incurring more cost synergies earlier and less sales dis-synergies than we originally anticipated. Although we recognize that we will continue to have revenue dis-synergies during the remaining integration period, we believe we have an excellent opportunity to improve efficiency and leverage fixed costs in our business going forward. We also believe we have significant opportunity at the same time to advance certain balance sheet initiatives, such as improving our inventory, instrument set utilization and days sales outstanding (DSO).
While our ultimate financial goal is to achieve sustained profitability in the short-term, we anticipate continuing operating losses until we are able to grow our sales to a sufficient level to support our cost structure, including the inherent infrastructure costs of our industry.
Significant Industry Factors. Our industry is affected by numerous competitive, regulatory, and other significant factors. The growth of our business relies on our ability to continue to develop new products and innovative technologies, obtain regulatory clearance and maintain compliance for our products, protect the proprietary technology of our products and our efforts will continue through 2014manufacturing processes, manufacture our products cost-effectively, respond to competitive pressures specific to each of our geographic markets, including our ability to enforce non-compete agreements, and into 2015.successfully market and distribute our products in a profitable manner. We, and the entire industry, are subject to extensive governmental regulation, primarily by the FDA. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition. We, as well as other participants in our industry, are subject to product liability claims, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition.

Results of Operations

Fiscal Year Comparisons

On October 21, 2016, pursuant to a binding offer letter dated as of July 8, 2016, we closed the sale of our Large Joints business to Corin. The financial results of our Large Joints business are reflected within discontinued operations for all periods presented.
On January 9, 2014, legacy Wright completed the sale of its hip and knee (OrthoRecon) business to MicroPort. The financial results of the OrthoRecon business are also reflected within discontinued operations for all periods presented.
The discussion below is on a continuing operations basis, unless otherwise noted.

Comparison of the year ended December 25, 2016 to the year ended December 27, 2015
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, certain items from our consolidated statementsresults of operations expressed as dollar amounts (in thousands) and as percentages of net sales:
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 
December 27, 2015 3
 Amount% of net sales Amount% of net sales
Net sales$690,362
100.0 % $405,326
100.0 %
Cost of sales 1, 2
192,407
27.9 % 113,622
28.0 %
Gross profit497,955
72.1 % 291,704
72.0 %
Operating expenses:     
Selling, general and administrative 1
541,558
78.4 % 424,377
104.7 %
Research and development 1
50,514
7.3 % 39,339
9.7 %
Amortization of intangible assets28,841
4.2 % 16,754
4.1 %
Total operating expenses620,913
89.9 % 480,470
118.5 %
Operating loss(122,958)(17.8)% (188,766)(46.6)%
Interest expense, net58,530
8.5 % 41,358
10.2 %
Other (income) expense, net(3,148)(0.5)% 10,884
2.7 %
Loss from continuing operations before income taxes(178,340)(25.8)% (241,008)(59.5)%
Benefit for income taxes(13,406)(1.9)% (3,652)(0.9)%
Net loss from continuing operations$(164,934)(23.9)% $(237,356)(58.6)%
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax(267,439)  (61,345) 
Net loss$(432,373)  $(298,701) 
___________________________
1
These line items include the following amounts of non-cash, share-based compensation expense for the periods indicated:
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016% of net sales December 27, 2015% of net sales
Cost of sales$414
0.1% $287
0.1%
Selling, general and administrative13,216
1.9% 22,777
5.6%
Research and development786
0.1% 1,900
0.5%
2
Cost of sales includes amortization of inventory step-up adjustment of $37.7 million and $10.3 million for the years ended December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, respectively.
3
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.


The following table sets forth our net sales by product line for our U.S. and International businesses for the periods indicated (in thousands) and the percentage of revenueyear-over-year change:
  Fiscal year ended
U.S. December 25, 2016 
December 27, 2015 1
 % change
Lower extremities $222,936
 $187,096
 19.2 %
Upper extremities 201,579
 58,756
 243.1 %
Biologics 74,603
 50,583
 47.5 %
Sports med & other 8,429
 3,388
 148.8 %
Total U.S. $507,547
 $299,823
 69.3 %
       
International      
Lower extremities $62,701
 $51,200
 22.5 %
Upper extremities 86,502
 24,789
 249.0 %
Biologics 18,883
 19,652
 (3.9)%
Sports med & other 14,729
 9,862
 49.4 %
Total International $182,815
 $105,503
 73.3 %
       
Total net sales $690,362
 $405,326
 70.3 %
___________________________
1
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.
The results of operations discussion that such items representappears below has been presented utilizing a combination of historical unaudited and, where relevant, non-GAAP combined pro forma unaudited information to include the effects on our consolidated financial statements of our acquisition of Tornier, as if we had acquired Tornier as of January 1, 2014. The combined pro forma net sales have been adjusted to reflect a combination of the historical results of operations of Tornier, as adjusted to reflect the effect on our combined net sales of incremental revenues that would have been recognized had Tornier been acquired on January 1, 2014. The combined pro forma net sales have been developed based on available information and upon assumptions that our management believes are reasonable in order to reflect, on a pro forma basis, the impact of the Wright/Tornier merger.
The pro forma financial data is not necessarily indicative of results of operations that would have occurred had the Wright/Tornier merger been consummated at the beginning of the period presented or which might be attained in the future.

The following table reconciles our non-GAAP combined pro forma net sales by product line for the periods shown.

   Year ended 
   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
  January 1,
2012
 
   ($ in thousands) 

Statements of Operations Data:

       

Revenue

  $310,959    100 $277,520    100 $261,191    100

Cost of goods sold

   86,172    28    81,918    30    74,882    29  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

Gross profit

   224,787    72    195,602    70    186,309    71  

Selling, general and administrative

   206,851    67    170,447    61    161,448    62  

Research and development

   22,387    7    22,524    8    19,839    8  

Amortization of intangible assets

   15,885    5    11,721    4    11,282    4  

Special charges

   3,738    1    19,244    7    892    0  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

Operating loss

   (24,074  (8  (28,334  (10  (7,152  (3

Interest income

   245    0    338    0    550    0  

Interest expense

   (7,256  (2  (3,733  (1  (4,326  (2

Foreign currency transaction (loss) gain

   (1,820  (1  (473  (0  193    0  

Loss on extinguishment of debt

   (1,127  (0  (593  (0  (29,475  (11

Other non-operating (expense) income, net

   (45  (0  116    0    1,330    1  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

Loss before income taxes

   (34,077  (11  (32,679  (12  (38,880  (15

Income tax (expense) benefit

   (2,349  (1  10,935    4    8,424    3  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

Consolidated net loss

  $(36,426  (12)%  $(21,744  (8)%  $(30,456  (12)% 
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

year ended December 27, 2015 (in thousands):

 Fiscal year ended December 27, 2015
 
Net sales as reported 1
 
Legacy Tornier N.V. standalone nine months ended September 27, 2015 2
 
Legacy Tornier Stub Period (September 28, 2015 - September 30, 2015) 3
 
Legacy Tornier
net sales divested 4
 
Non-GAAP
combined pro forma
net sales
U.S.         
Lower extremities$187,096
 $29,637
 $279
 $(9,733) $207,279
Upper extremities58,756
 115,846
 1,773
 
 176,375
Biologics50,583
 1,290
 66
 
 51,939
Sports med & other3,388
 5,021
 4
 
 8,413
Total extremities & biologics299,823
 151,794
 2,122
 (9,733) 444,006
Large joint
 119
 
 (119) 
Total U.S.$299,823
 $151,913
 $2,122
 $(9,852) $444,006
          
International         
Lower extremities$51,200
 $7,402
 $152
 $
 $58,754
Upper extremities24,789
 51,293
 1,260
 
 77,342
Biologics19,652
 357
 13
 
 20,022
Sports med & other9,862
 5,372
 132
 
 15,366
Total extremities & biologics105,503
 64,424
 1,557
 
 171,484
Large joint
 29,921
 753
 (30,674) 
Total International$105,503
 $94,345
 $2,310
 $(30,674) $171,484
          
Global         
Lower extremities$238,296
 $37,039
 $431
 $(9,733) $266,033
Upper extremities83,545
 167,139
 3,033
 
 253,717
Biologics70,235
 1,647
 79
 
 71,961
Sports med & other13,250
 10,393
 136
 
 23,779
Total extremities & biologics405,326
 216,218
 3,679
 (9,733) 615,490
Large joint
 30,040
 753
 (30,793) 
Total net sales$405,326
 $246,258
 $4,432
 $(40,526) $615,490
___________________________
1
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.
2
Legacy Tornier product line sales have been recast to reflect the reclassification of cement, instruments and freight from the historical Tornier product line "Large Joints and Other" to the product line associated with those revenues that will be utilized for future revenue reporting.
3
To add revenues from Legacy Tornier's fourth quarter for the period prior to the merger closing date when operations became consolidated.
4
To reduce from Tornier’s historical sales the U.S. sales associated with Tornier’s Salto Talaris and Salto XT ankle replacement products and silastic toe replacement products that were divested prior to the merger and the global sales associated with Tornier's Large Joints business that have been reflected in discontinued operations.

The following tables settable sets forth our 2016 net sales growth rates by product line as compared to our 2015 non-GAAP combined pro forma net sales for the periods indicated our revenue by product category and geography expressed as dollar amounts(in thousands) and the changes in revenue between the specified periods expressed as percentages:

Revenue by Product Category

   Year ended   Percent change 
   December 29,
2013
   December 30,
2012
   January 1,
2012
   2013/
2012
  2012/
2011
  2013/
2012
  2012/
2011
 
   ($ in thousands)   (as stated)  

(constant

currency)*

 

Upper extremity joints and trauma

  $184,457    $175,242    $164,064     5  7  5  9

Lower extremity joints and trauma

   58,747     34,109     26,033     72    31    72    33  

Sports medicine and biologics

   14,752     15,526     14,779     (5  5    (5  7  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total extremities

   257,956     224,877     204,876     15    10    14    12  

Large joints and other

   53,003     52,643     56,315     1    (7  (2  1  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total

  $310,959    $277,520    $261,191     12  6  11  9
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Revenue by Geography

   Year ended   Percent change 
   December 29,
2013
   December 30,
2012
   January 1,
2012
   2013/
2012
  2012/
2011
  2013/
2012
  2012/
2011
 
   ($ in thousands)   (as stated)  (constant
currency) *
 

United States

  $182,104    $156,750    $141,496     16  11  16  11

International

   128,855     120,770     119,695     7    1    5    8  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total

  $310,959    $277,520    $261,191     12  6  11  9
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

*-Constant currency is a non-GAAP financial measure. We calculate constant currency percentages by converting our current-period local currency financial results using the prior-period foreign currency exchange rates and comparing these adjusted amounts to our prior-period reported results.

Year Ended December 29, 2013 (2013) Compared to Year Ended December 30, 2012 (2012)

Revenue. Revenue increased by 12% to $311.0percentage of year-over-year change:

 Net sales Non-GAAP combined pro forma net sales 
%
change
Fiscal year ended December 25, 2016 Fiscal year ended December 27, 2015 
U.S.     
Lower extremities$222,936
 $207,279
 7.6 %
Upper extremities201,579
 176,375
 14.3 %
Biologics74,603
 51,939
 43.6 %
Sports med & other8,429
 8,413
 0.2 %
Total U.S.$507,547
 $444,006
 14.3 %
      
International     
Lower extremities$62,701
 $58,754
 6.7 %
Upper extremities86,502
 77,342
 11.8 %
Biologics18,883
 20,022
 (5.7)%
Sports med & other14,729
 15,366
 (4.1)%
Total International$182,815
 $171,484
 6.6 %
      
Global     
Lower extremities$285,637
 $266,033
 7.4 %
Upper extremities288,081
 253,717
 13.5 %
Biologics93,486
 71,961
 29.9 %
Sports med & other23,158
 23,779
 (2.6)%
Total net sales$690,362
 $615,490
 12.2 %
Net sales
U.S. net sales. U.S. net sales totaled $507.5 million in 20132016, a 69.3% increase from $277.5$299.8 million in 2012,2015, primarily due to the impact of the Wright/Tornier merger. U.S. net sales in 2016 increased 14.3% as a resultcompared to 2015 pro forma net sales. U.S. sales represented approximately 73.5% of our acquisition and integrationtotal net sales in 2016, compared to 74.0% of OrthoHelix andtotal net sales in 2015.
Our U.S. lower extremities net sales increased to $222.9 million in 2016 from $187.1 million, representing growth of 19.2%, driven by continued growth in upper extremity joints and trauma. Foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations had a positivelegacy Wright's lower extremities business, as well as the impact of $2.1 millionthe Wright/Tornier merger. Our U.S. lower extremities net sales grew 7.6% in 2013. Excluding the positive impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, our revenue grew2016 as compared to 2015 pro forma net sales. This pro forma net sales growth was driven by 11% on a constant currency basis. We believe revenue in 2013 was negatively impacted by disruption27.2% net sales growth in our U.S.total ankle replacement products, as well as sales channel due to our strategic initiative to establish separate sales channels that are individually focused on upper extremity products and lower extremity products.

Revenue by product category. Revenue in upper extremity joints and trauma increased by 5% to $184.5 million in 2013 from $175.2 million in 2012, primarily as a result of the continued increase in sales of our Aequalis Ascend shoulder products, including the Aequalis Ascend Flex convertible shoulder that was launched in the third quarter of 2013, and Aequalis reversed shoulder products and the Latitude EV elbow. We believe the increase in sales of our Aequalis Ascend shoulder products was due to continued market share gains and the launch of the Aequalis Ascend Flex, while the increased sales of our Aequalis reversed shoulder products resulted from continued market movement toward reversed shoulder replacement procedures. This increase was partially offset by decreased revenue from our mature shoulder products and disruption in our U.S. sales channel. Foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations had a positive impact of $0.5 million on the upper extremity joints and trauma revenue growth during 2013. Excluding the positive impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, our upper extremity joints and trauma revenue grew by 5% on a constant currency basis. We anticipate that revenue from upper extremity joints and trauma will be favorably impacted in future periods as a result of therecent launch of our Aequalis Ascend Flex, although we expect a certain level of cannibalization of our other mature shoulder products as a result of the launch.

Revenue in lower extremity joints and trauma increased by 72% to $58.7 million in 2013 from $34.1 million in 2012, primarily as a result of our acquisition and integration of OrthoHelix. This growth was partially offset by decreased revenue of legacy TornierSALVATION® limb salvage system for treating Charcot foot and ankle fixation products driven by disruption in our U.S. sales channel due to our strategic initiative to establish separate sales channels that are individually focused on upper extremity products and lower extremity products.

Revenue in sports medicine and biologics decreased 5% to $14.8 million in 2013 from $15.5 million in 2012 as growth in our suture and BioFiber products was more than offset by decreases in certain anchor products and our Conexa product. Our sports medicine and biologics products are sold by both our upper and lower extremities sales forces and were also partially impacted by the disruption in our U.S. sales channel.

Revenue from large joints and other increased by 1% to $53.0 million in 2013 from $52.6 million in 2012 related primarily to growth in sales of our hip products and the positive impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations,limb salvage cases, partially offset by declines in sales of legacy Tornier foot and ankle products due to merger-related sales dis-synergies, which were anticipated and are expected to continue.

Our U.S. upper extremities net sales increased to $201.6 million in 2016 from $58.8 million, representing growth of 243.1%. This growth was driven almost entirely by the impact of the Wright/Tornier merger. Our U.S. upper extremities net sales grew 14.3% in 2016 as compared to 2015 pro forma net sales. This pro forma growth was driven by continued success of our mature kneeAEQUALIS ASCEND® shoulder products, including the AEQUALIS ASCEND® FLEXTM convertible shoulder system, as we transition to next generation technologies. Revenuewell as sales from our large joints and other category isSIMPLICITI® shoulder system that was launched late in the third quarter of 2015.
Our U.S. biologics net sales totaled $74.6 million in 2016, representing a 47.5% increase over 2015, driven primarily generatedby sales of AUGMENT® Bone Graft, which was commercially launched in certain western European geographies which continuedthe fourth quarter 2015. Our U.S. biologics net sales grew 43.6% in 2016 as compared to experience economic pressures, negatively impacting2015 pro forma net sales, primarily driven by sales of AUGMENT® Bone Graft.
International net sales. Net sales of our revenueextremities products in this category. Foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations hadour international regions totaled $182.8 million in 2016, a positive73.3% increase from $105.5 million in 2015, primarily due to the impact of $1.5the Wright/Tornier merger. Our international net sales in 2016 increased 6.6% as compared to 2015 pro forma international net sales, and included a $4.7 million on our large joints and other revenue during 2013. Excluding the positiveunfavorable impact offrom foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, our large jointsrates (a 3 percentage point unfavorable impact to pro forma international net sales growth rate).

Our international lower extremities net sales increased 22.5% to $62.7 million in 2016 from $51.2 million in 2015. Our international lower extremities sales grew 6.7% in 2016 as compared to 2015 pro forma international lower extremities net sales, primarily driven by a 16.7% increase in sales to stocking distributors and other revenue decreased by 2% on a constant currency basis.

Revenue by geography. Revenuelower than normal sales in Latin America in the United Statesprior year period. This increase was partially offset by merger-related sales dis-synergies, which are anticipated to continue, and a $2.1 million unfavorable impact from foreign currency exchange rates (a 4 percentage point unfavorable impact to pro forma international lower extremities sales growth rate).

Our international upper extremities net sales increased by 16%249.0% to $182.1$86.5 million in 20132016 from $156.8$24.8 million in 2012, primarily due to our acquisition and integration of OrthoHelix. Excluding2015, driven entirely by the impact from OrthoHelix,of the Wright/Tornier merger. Our international upper extremities net sales grew 11.8% in 2016 as compared to 2015 pro forma international upper extremities net sales, driven primarily by a 7.3% increase in sales in our revenuesdirect markets in the United States decreasedEurope and a 37.9% increase in sales in Australia as a result of disruption in our U.S. sales channel duea stocking sale to our strategic initiative to establish separate sales channels that are individually focused on upper extremity products and lower extremity products. While we believe this transition will increase our ability to meet our customers’ needs in the future, it had a negative impact on our U.S. revenue growth and likely will continue to negatively impact U.S. revenue growth during 2014 until the initiative is complete.

International revenue increased by 7% to $128.9 million in 2013 from $120.8 million in 2012. International revenue increased due to revenue growth in France from increased demand and certain geographic expansion activities in which we increased the number of products sold through direct sales channels in countries where we historically utilized local independent distributor, representation. Our international revenue growth was partially offset by decreases in revenue in certain western European countries due to continued austerity measures and lower procedure volumes and lower sales volumes to certain stocking distributors. Foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations had a positive impact of $2.1 million on international revenue during 2013. Excluding the positive impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, our international revenue increased by 5% on a constant currency basis.

Cost of goods sold. Cost of goods sold increased to $86.2 million in 2013 from $81.9 million in 2012. As a percentage of revenue, cost of goods sold decreased to 28% in 2013 from 30% in 2012, primarily due to product cost improvements, production efficiencies and the insourcing of certain products. This decrease was partially offset by a higher level$1.4 million unfavorable impact from foreign currency exchange rates (a 2 percentage point unfavorable impact to pro forma international upper extremities sales growth rate).

Our international biologics net sales decreased 3.9% to $18.9 million in 2016 from $19.7 million in 2015. On a pro forma basis, our international biologics net sales decreased 5.7% in 2016 as compared to 2015 pro forma international biologics net sales. This decrease was primarily attributable to lower levels of sales to stocking distributors, as well as a $0.6 million unfavorable impact from foreign currency exchange rates (a 3 percentage point unfavorable impact to pro forma international biologics sales growth rate).
Cost of sales
Our cost of sales totaled $192.4 million, or 27.9% of net sales, in 2016, compared to $113.6 million, or 28.0% of net sales, in 2015, representing a decrease of 0.1 percentage points as a percentage of net sales. Cost of sales included $37.7 million (5.5% of net sales) and $10.3 million (2.5% of net sales) of inventory step-up amortization in 2016 and 2015, respectively, associated with inventory acquired from the Wright/Tornier merger. The remaining decrease in cost of sales as a percentage of net sales was primarily driven by favorable geographic and product mix, as increased provisions for excess and obsolete inventory charges and the negative impact of our geographical revenue mix. Also included in cost of goods sold in 2013 is approximately $5.9 million in fair value adjustments related to inventory acquired in our acquisition of OrthoHelix compared to $2.0 million in fair value adjustments related to acquired inventory and $3.0 million related to product rationalization charges in 2012 as a result of our acquisition of OrthoHelix. We intend to continue to focus on improving our cost of goods soldwere relatively flat as a percentage of revenue through a combination of manufacturing efficiencies,sales due to the additional in-sourcing activities and improved product mix. However, oursales following the Wright/Tornier merger.
Our cost of goods soldsales and corresponding gross profit as a percentage of revenuepercentages can be expected to fluctuate in future periods depending upon, certainamong other factors, including, among others, changes in our product sales mix and prices, distribution channels and geographies, manufacturing yields, plans for insourcing some previously outsourced production activities, inventory reserves required,period expenses, levels of production volume, and fluctuating inventory costs due to changes in foreign currency exchange rates since the period they were manufactured. The fair value adjustment charges recorded as cost of goods sold from the sell through of inventory acquired from business acquisitions is expected to decline in future periods from the levels experienced in 2013 as all fair value adjustment charges related to the OrthoHelix acquired inventory have been fully recognized.

rates.

Selling, general and administrative.administrative
Our selling, general and administrative expenses increased by 21%totaled $541.6 million, or 78.4% of net sales, in 2016, compared to $206.9$424.4 million, or 104.7% of net sales, in 2013 from $170.4 million in 2012 primarily as a result of our acquisition of OrthoHelix. As a percentage of revenue, selling, general and administrative expenses were 67% and 61% in 2013 and 2012, respectively. The increase in selling,2015. Selling, general and administrative expense as a percentagefor 2016 and 2015 included $31.9 million (4.6% of revenue was primarily a resultnet sales) and $75.9 million (18.7% of higher variable sales expensesnet sales), respectively, of transition and non-variable sales expenses related totransaction costs associated with the establishment of direct sales channelsWright/Tornier merger. The remaining decrease in the United States and several countries internationally, higher investments in sales training and education, an increase in expense related to information technology infrastructure and $3.2 million of expense related to the medical device excise tax which became effective in 2013. We expect selling, general and administrative expenses as a percentage of revenue to be higher than historical levelsnet sales was driven primarily by leveraged spending in the near term until we experience the anticipated revenue benefits of our U.S. lower extremities and biologics segment as expense grew at a significantly lower rate than net sales, channel transitions, integration initiatives, investments in sales resources, trainingthe addition of the legacy Tornier U.S. upper extremities business with a lower percentage of selling, general and education, and new product launches, including the Aequalis Ascend Flex.

Research and development. Research and developmentadministrative expenses decreased slightly to $22.4 million in 2013 from $22.5 million in 2012. Asas a percentage of revenue,net sales than legacy Wright, and lower levels of corporate spending as a percentage of net sales following the Wright/Tornier merger.

Our selling, general and administrative expenses are expected to decrease as a percentage of sales in 2017, through a combination of continued cost synergies and expense leverage as sales continue to increase at a higher rate than expenses. Additionally, we anticipate that transition costs associated with the Wright/Tornier merger will decrease significantly in absolute dollars in 2017.
Research and development
Our investment in research and development expense totaled $50.5 million in 2016 compared to $39.3 million in 2015. This increase was almost entirely due to $15.1 million of additional research and development expenses decreased 1% to 7% in 2013 from 8% in 2012. The decrease in totalassociated with the acquired Tornier business.
Our research and development expenseexpenses are estimated to range from 7% to 8% as a percentage of $0.1 million was primarily due to lower spending due to the timing of certain development projects, partially offset by our acquisition of OrthoHelix.

Amortization of intangible assets.sales in 2017.

Amortization of intangible assets increased $4.2 million to $15.9
Charges associated with amortization of intangible assets totaled $28.8 million in 2013 from $11.72016, compared to $16.8 million in 2012. The2015. This increase was driven by amortization of intangible assets acquired as part of the Wright/Tornier merger. Based on intangible assets held at December 25, 2016, we expect to amortize approximately $27.2 million in 2017, $22.1 million in 2018, $20.4 million in 2019, $19.8 million in 2020, and $19.6 million in 2021.

Interest expense, net
Interest expense, net, totaled $58.5 million in 2016 and $41.4 million in 2015. Increased interest expense was driven by the increase in amortization expense was primarily attributable to an increase in intangible assets due to our acquisitiondebt outstanding following the issuance of OrthoHelix.

Special charges. We recorded $3.7 million in special charges in 2013 compared to $19.2 million in 2012. The $3.7 million in special charges for 2013 were primarily comprised of $7.1 million of integration and distributor transition costs and $1.2 million of legal settlementsthe 2021 Notes in the United States, partially offset by a $5.1 million reversalsecond quarter of a contingent consideration liability related to our OrthoHelix acquisition due to the under-performance of legacy Tornier lower extremity products versus established revenue targets. Special charges in 2012 included approximately $6.4 million of expense related to our facilities consolidation initiative, $4.7 million of intangible impairment charges, $3.5 million of integration costs related to our acquisitions of OrthoHelix and our exclusive stocking distributor in Belgium and Luxembourg, $2.0 million of bad debt expense related to the termination of a distributor and worsening general economic conditions in Italy, $1.4 million of expense related to distributor transition costs in the United States and internationally, and $1.2 million of expense related to management exit costs including the departures of our former Chief Executive Officer and Global Chief Financial Officer. We expect to record special charges in 2014 between $3.9 and $5.6 million primarily related to our ongoing integration of OrthoHelix, expected completion of our U.S. sales transitions and OrthoHelix restructuring efforts. See 2016 (see Note 189 to our consolidated financial statements for further detaildiscussion of changes in our outstanding debt). Our interest expense in 2016 related primarily to non-cash interest expense associated with the amortization of the discount on special charges.

Interest income.the 2021 Notes and 2020 Notes of $9.8 million and $25.9 million, respectively; amortization of deferred financing charges on the 2021 Notes, 2020 Notes, and 2017 Notes totaling $3.9 million; and cash interest expense primarily associated with the coupon on the 2021 Notes, 2020 Notes, and 2017 Notes totaling $17.8 million. Our interest expense in 2015 related primarily to non-cash interest expense associated with the amortization of the discount on the 2020 Notes and 2017 Notes of $21.8 million and $2.9 million, respectively, amortization of deferred financing charges on the 2020 Notes and 2017 Notes totaling $2.7 million and $0.5 million, respectively; and cash interest expense on the 2020 Notes and 2017 Notes totaling $12.8 million. An insignificant amount of interest income was immaterial forrecorded during 2016 and 2015. The amount of interest income we expect to realize in 2017 and beyond is subject to variability, dependent upon both 2013the rate of invested returns we realize and 2012.

Interest expense.the amount of excess cash balances on hand.

Our interest expense, increasednet, is anticipated to $7.3increase during 2017, due to the mid-year issuance of the 2021 Notes and the debt outstanding under the ABL Facility entered into in December 2016.
Other (income) expense, net
Other (income) expense, net was $3.1 million of income in 2016, compared to $10.9 million of expense in 2015. In 2016, other income, net included a gain of $28.3 million for the net mark-to-market adjustments on our derivative assets and liabilities. This gain was partially offset by an unrealized loss of $8.7 million for the mark-to-market adjustment on CVRs issued in connection with the BioMimetic acquisition. In 2015, other expense, net included a gain of $7.6 million for the mark-to-market adjustment on the CVRs issued in connection with the BioMimetic acquisition, as well as an unrealized gain of $9.8 million for the mark-to-market adjustment on our derivatives, offset by a $25.1 million charge for write-off of pro-rata unamortized deferred financing fees and debt discount with repayment of $240 million of the 2017 Notes.
Benefit for income taxes
We recorded a tax benefit of $13.4 million in 2013 from2016 and $3.7 million in 2012 due primarily2015. During 2016, our effective tax rate was approximately 7.5%, as compared to 1.7% in 2015. Our 2016 tax benefit included a $5.6 million benefit representing the deferred tax effects associated with the acquired Tornier operations, as well as a $2.3 million benefit related to the establishmentresolution of our credit facility whichan IRS tax audit. The remaining tax benefit in 2016 was used to fund our acquisition of OrthoHelix in the fourth quarter of 2012. In addition, interest expense was higher due to the accretion of interest expenseprimarily related to OrthoHelix earn-out liabilities. We expect to continue to experience interest expense related to our credit agreement; however,losses, including amortization of inventory fair value step-up and intangible assets, in the second quarter of 2013,jurisdictions where we repaid our $40.0 million Euro denominated term loan in full and repaid approximately $10.5 million of principal on our U.S. dollar denominated term loan, which we expect will reduce our future interest expense during 2014 from levels incurred in the first half of 2013.

Foreign currency transaction loss. We recognized $1.8 million of foreign currency transaction loss in 2013 compared todo not have a $0.5 million foreign currency transaction loss in 2012. Foreign currency gains and losses are recognized when a transaction is denominated in a currency other than the subsidiary’s functional currency. The increase in foreign currency transaction lossvaluation allowance. Our 2015 tax benefit was primarily attributable to foreign currency exchangelosses benefited in jurisdictions where we did not have a valuation allowance. Our relatively low effective tax rate fluctuations on foreign currency denominated intercompany payables and receivables.

Loss on extinguishment of debt.We recorded $1.1 million in loss on extinguishment of debt for 2013both periods was primarily related to the write-off of a debt discount on the repayment of our Euro denominated term loan. This compared to $0.6 million in loss on extinguishment of debt in 2012 as a result of penalties incurred upon repayment of certain portions of our previously existing European debt. We were required to repay all existing debt in 2012 prior to entering into the senior secured term loans that were used to finance our acquisition of OrthoHelix.

Other non-operating (expense) income. Our other non-operating income was immaterial for both 2013 and 2012.

Income tax (expense) benefit. We recorded income tax expense of $2.3 million during 2013 compared to an income tax benefit of $10.9 million for 2012. Our effective tax rate for 2013 and 2012 was (6.9)% and 33.5%, respectively. The change in our effective tax rate from 2012 to 2013 primarily relates to the impact of a $10.4 million tax benefit from the reversal of valuation allowance related to the OrthoHelix acquisition and the relative percentage ofon our pre-tax income generated from operations in countries with related income tax expense compared to operations in countries in which we have pre-tax losses but for which we record a valuation allowance against ourU.S. net deferred tax assets, and thus, cannotresulting in the inability to recognize incomea tax benefits. In addition, we recorded $1.0 million of income tax expense to establish a valuation allowancebenefit for deferred tax assets related to foreign stock-based compensation during 2013. We determined the tax planning strategies necessary to realize these deferred tax assets were no longer prudent, and as a result, we no longer believed these deferred tax assets were realizable. Given our history of operatingpre-tax losses we do not generally record a provision for income taxes in the United States and certain of our European geographies.

Year Ended December 30, 2012 (2012) Compared to Year Ended January 1, 2012 (2011)

Revenue. Revenue increased by 6% to $277.5 million in 2012 from $261.2 million in 2011 as a result of increased sales in all of our extremities categories, partially offset by a decrease in sales of large joints and other due primarilyexcept to the negative impactextent to which we recognize a gain in discontinued operations.

Loss from discontinued operations, net of foreign currency exchange rates. The growth experienced in the extremities categories was driven primarily by increased demand, product expansion and our acquisitiontax
Loss from discontinued operations, net of OrthoHelix. Excluding the negative impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations of approximately $8.1 million, principally due to the performancetax, consists of the U.S. dollar against the Euro, our revenue grew by 9% on a constant currency basis.

Revenue by product category. Revenue in upper extremity joints and trauma increased by 7% to $175.2 million in 2012 from $164.1 million in 2011 primarily as a result of an increase in sales of our Aequalis reversed and Aequalis Ascend shoulder products, and to a lesser degree, our Simpliciti shoulder products. We believe that increased sales of our Aequalis reversed shoulder products resulted from market growth in shoulder replacement procedures and market movement towards reversed shoulder replacement procedures. We also saw an increase in sales of our Aequalis Ascend shoulder products which gained share in the shoulder replacement market. Included in the upper extremity joints and trauma revenue for 2012 was $0.2 million of incremental revenue from our acquisition of OrthoHelix. Offsetting these increases was the negative impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations of $3.4 million. Excluding the impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, revenue in upper extremity joints and trauma increased by 9% on a constant currency basis.

Revenue in our lower extremity joints and trauma increased by 31% to $34.1 million in 2012 from $26.0 million in 2011 primarily due to $7.8 million in incremental revenue from our acquisition of OrthoHelix.

Revenue in sports medicine and biologics increased by 5% to $15.5 million in 2012 from $14.8 million in 2011, which was primarily attributable to increased sales of our anchor and suture products internationally, partially offset by a decrease in revenue of our biologics products, primarily our Conexa product.

Revenue from large joints and other decreased by 7% to $52.6 million in 2012 from $56.3 million in 2011 primarily related to negative foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations of $4.0 million. Excluding the impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, our large joints and other product revenue increased 1% on a constant currency basis.

Revenue by geography. Revenue in the United States increased by 11% to $156.8 million in 2012 from $141.5 million in 2011. While U.S. revenue was negatively impacted by certain U.S. sales channel changes during 2012, overall U.S. revenue increased as a result of incremental revenue from our OrthoHelix acquisition and increases in sales in upper extremity joints and trauma products. Included in the U.S. revenue was $8.0 million in incremental revenue from our OrthoHelix acquisition.

International revenue increased slightly to $120.8 million in 2012 from $119.7 million in 2011. International revenue was negatively impacted by foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations of approximately $8.1 million, principally due to the performanceoperations of the U.S. dollar againstLarge Joints business that was sold to Corin, as well as the Euro. Excludingcosts associated with legal defense, income/loss associated with product liability insurance recoveries/denials, and changes to any contingent liabilities associated with the impactOrthoRecon business that was sold to MicroPort. During 2016, we recognized a $196.6 million charge, net of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, our international revenue grew by 8% on a constant currency basis. This increase was primarily due to increased revenue in Australia,insurance proceeds, for certain retained metal-on-metal product liability claims associated with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands as a result of increased demand.

Cost of goods sold. Our cost of goods sold increased by 9% to $81.9 million in 2012 from $74.9 million in 2011. As a percentage of revenue, cost of goods sold increased to 30% in 2012 from 29% in 2011, primarily as a result of approximately $2.0 million in fair value adjustments related to inventory acquired in our acquisitions of OrthoHelix and our acquisition of our exclusive stocking distributor in Belgium and Luxembourg.

Selling, general and administrative. Our selling, general and administrative expenses increased by 6% to $170.4 million in 2012 from $161.4 million in 2011. As a percentage of revenue, selling, general and administrative expenses remained consistent at 62% in 2012 and 2011. The increase in total selling, general and administrative expenses was primarily a result of $3.4 million of additional variable selling expenses including commissions, royalties and freight expenses due to increased revenue. Selling, general and administrative expenses also increased as a result of increased instrument depreciation, sales management costs and costs related to information technology, partially offset by a decrease in expenses related to certain management incentives. These items were partially offset by the favorable impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations of $6.1 million.

Research and development. Research and development expenses increased by 14% to $22.5 million in 2012 from $19.8 million in 2011. As a percentage of revenue, research and development expenses remained consistent during 2012 and 2011 at 8%. The increase in research and development expense of $2.7 million was primarily due to increased clinical study related expenses, an increased level of expenses on certain shoulder related development projects, including the Aequalis Ascend Flex convertible shoulder system, certain biologics related development projects and increased personnel related expenses. These items were partially offset by the favorable impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations of $0.8 million and a decrease in expenses related to certain management incentives.

Amortization of intangible assets. Amortization of intangible assets increased by 4% to $11.7 million in 2012 from $11.3 million in 2011,OrthoRecon business primarily as a result of the amortization of intangible assets recorded through our acquisition of OrthoHelix and our acquisition of our exclusive stocking distributorMaster Settlement Agreement we entered into in Belgium and Luxembourg in 2012, partially offset by the complete amortization of certain license related intangible assets that were fully amortized in 2011.

Special charges. Special charges were $19.2 million in 2012 compared to $0.9 million in 2011. Special charges in 2012 included approximately $6.4 million of expense related to our facilities consolidation initiative, $2.0 million of bad debt expense related to the termination of a distributor and worsening general economic conditions in Italy, $1.4 million of expense related to certain distribution changes in the United States and internationally, $3.5 million of integration costs related to our acquisitions of OrthoHelix and our exclusive stocking distributor in Belgium and Luxembourg, $1.2 million of expense related to management exit costs including the departures of our former Chief Executive Officer and Global Chief Financial Officer and $4.7 million of intangible impairment charges. For 2011, the $0.9 million of special charges were primarily related to severance costs from certain management organizational changes.

Interest income.Our interest income decreased by 38% to $0.3 million in 2012 from $0.6 million in 2011, primarily as a result of lower average levels of cash held and decreased average interest rates in 2012 compared to 2011.

Interest expense. Our interest expense decreased by 14% to $3.7 million in 2012 from $4.3 million in 2011 due primarily to the repayment of our notes payable in February 2011. Our interest expense for 2012 related primarily to the interest paid on our term loans, mortgages, and prior lines of credit and overdraft arrangements.

Foreign currency transaction (loss) gain. We recognized $0.5 million of foreign currency transaction losses in 2012 compared to $0.2 million of foreign currency transaction gains in 2011. Foreign currency gains and losses are recognized when a transaction is denominated in a currency other than the subsidiary’s functional currency and are primarily attributable to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations on foreign currency denominated intercompany payables and receivables.

Loss on extinguishment of debt.We recognized a $0.6 million loss on the extinguishment of debt in 2012 as a result of penalties incurred upon repayment of certain portions of our European debt. We were required to pay-off all existing debt in 2012 prior to entering into the senior secured term loans that were used to finance our acquisition of OrthoHelix. See November 2016 (see Note 816 to our consolidated financial statements for further details. In 2011, we recognizeddiscussion). See Note 4 to our consolidated financial statements for further discussion of our discontinued operations.

Reportable segments
The following tables set forth, for the periods indicated, net sales and operating income (loss) of our reportable segments expressed as dollar amounts (in thousands) and as a $29.5percentage of net sales:
 Fiscal year ended December 25, 2016
 
U.S. Lower Extremities
& Biologics
 U.S. Upper Extremities 
International Extremities
& Biologics
Net sales$300,847
 $206,700
 $182,815
Operating income$85,645
 $65,231
 $5,872
Operating income as a percent of net sales28.5% 31.6% 3.2%

 Fiscal year ended December 27, 2015
 U.S. Lower Extremities
& Biologics
 U.S. Upper Extremities International Extremities
& Biologics
Net sales$239,748
 $60,075
 $105,503
Operating income (loss)$39,008
 $21,394
 $(5,567)
Operating income (loss) as a percent of net sales16.3% 35.6% (5.3)%
Net sales of our U.S. lower extremities and biologics segment increased $61.1 million loss on extinguishmentin 2016 over the prior year. This increase was driven by continued growth in legacy Wright's lower extremities business, sales of debtAUGMENT® Bone Graft, which was commercially launched in the fourth quarter 2015, as well as the impact of the Wright/Tornier merger. Operating income of our U.S. lower extremities and biologics segment increased $46.6 million in 2016 over the prior year. This increase was driven by leveraging expenses, as net sales increased at a higher rate than operating expenses.
Net sales of our U.S. upper extremities segment increased $146.6 million in 2016 over the prior year. This increase was driven almost entirely by the impact of the Wright/Tornier merger. Operating income of our U.S. upper extremities segment increased $43.8 million in 2016 over the prior year. This increase was driven almost entirely by the acquired Tornier business.
Net sales of our International extremities and biologics segment increased $77.3 million in 2016 over the prior year. This increase was primarily due to the repaymentimpact of the Wright/Tornier merger. Operating income of our notes payable. International extremities and biologics segment increased $11.4 million in 2016 over the prior year. This increase was primarily driven by the acquired Tornier business.
Comparison of the year ended December 27, 2015 to the year ended December 31, 2014
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, our results of operations expressed as dollar amounts (in thousands) and as percentages of net sales:
 Fiscal year ended
 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
 Amount% of net sales Amount% of net sales
Net sales$405,326
100.0 % $298,027
100.0 %
Cost of sales1
113,622
28.0 % 73,223
24.6 %
Gross profit291,704
72.0 % 224,804
75.4 %
Operating expenses:     
Selling, general and administrative1
424,377
104.7 % 289,620
97.2 %
Research and development1
39,339
9.7 % 24,963
8.4 %
Amortization of intangible assets16,754
4.1 % 10,027
3.4 %
Total operating expenses480,470
118.5 % 324,610
108.9 %
Operating loss(188,766)(46.6)% (99,806)(33.5)%
Interest expense, net41,358
10.2 % 17,398
5.8 %
Other expense, net10,884
2.7 % 129,626
43.5 %
Loss from continuing operations before income taxes(241,008)(59.5)% (246,830)(82.8)%
Benefit for income taxes(3,652)(0.9)% (6,334)(2.1)%
Net loss from continuing operations$(237,356)(58.6)% $(240,496)(80.7)%
(Loss) income from discontinued operations, net of tax1
(61,345)  (19,187) 
Net loss$(298,701)  $(259,683) 
___________________________
1
These line items include the following amounts of non-cash, share-based compensation expense for the periods indicated:
 Fiscal year ended
 December 27, 2015% of net sales December 31, 2014% of net sales
Cost of sales$287
0.1% $254
0.1%
Selling, general and administrative22,777
5.6% 10,149
3.4%
Research and development1,900
0.5% 1,084
0.4%

2
Cost of sales includes amortization of inventory step-up adjustment $10.3 million for the year ended December 27, 2015.
3
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.

The following table sets forth our net sales by product line for the periods indicated (in thousands) and the percentage of year-over-year change:
  Fiscal year ended
U.S. 
December 27, 2015 1
 December 31, 2014 % change
Lower extremities $187,096
 $148,631
 25.9 %
Upper extremities 58,756
 15,311
 283.8 %
Biologics 50,583
 45,494
 11.2 %
Sports med & other 3,388
 2,641
 28.3 %
Total U.S. $299,823
 $212,077
 41.4 %
       
International      
Lower extremities $51,200
 $47,001
 8.9 %
Upper extremities 24,789
 11,312
 119.1 %
Biologics 19,652
 20,590
 (4.6)%
Sports med & other 9,862
 7,047
 39.9 %
Total International $105,503
 $85,950
 22.7 %
       
Total net sales $405,326
 $298,027
 36.0 %
___________________________
1
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.
Net sales
U.S. net sales. U.S. net sales totaled $299.8 million in 2015, a 41.4% increase from $212.1 million in 2014, representing approximately 74.0% of total net sales in 2015, compared to 71.2% of total net sales in 2014. Products acquired as part of the Wright/Tornier merger contributed sales of $51.6 million, which accounted for 24 percentage points of the increase from 2014.
Our notes payable were issuedU.S. lower extremities net sales increased to $187.1 million in 2008 and 2009 together with warrants to purchase ordinary shares2015 from $148.6 million, representing growth of 25.9% over 2014. Sales in 2015 included $6.7 million from products acquired from the Wright/Tornier merger, which accounted for 4 percentage points of the increase. The remaining $31.8 million increase was driven by continued success of our company. AtTotal Ankle Replacement products, as well as growth in our core foot and ankle plating systems. 
Our U.S. upper extremities net sales increased to $58.8 million in 2015 from $15.3 million, representing growth of 283.8%, driven entirely by $43.3 million of acquired product sales from the timeWright/Tornier merger.
Our U.S. biologics net sales totaled $50.6 million in 2015, representing an 11.2% increase over 2014, primarily driven by sales of issuance, we recognizedrecently launched biologic products, including AUGMENT® Bone Graft, which was commercially launched in the estimated fair valuefourth quarter of 2015.
International extremities net sales. Net sales of our extremities products in our international regions totaled $105.5 million in 2015, a 22.7% increase from $86.0 million in 2014. Products acquired as part of the warrantsWright/Tornier merger contributed sales of $21.7 million in 2015, which accounted for 25 percentage points of the increase from 2014. Our 2015 international extremities sales included an unfavorable foreign currency impact of approximately $10.5 million when compared to 2014 net sales, which had a 12 percentage point unfavorable impact on the growth rate.
Our international lower extremities net sales increased 8.9% to $51.2 million in 2015, including a $6.2 million unfavorable foreign currency impact which had a 13 percentage point unfavorable impact on the growth rate. Sales in 2015 included $2.5 million from products acquired from the Wright/Tornier merger, which accounted for 5 percentage points of the increase in 2015. The remaining increase was driven by an 8% increase in sales in our direct markets in Europe, a 50% increase in sales in Australia and a 30% increase in sales in Canada.     
Our international upper extremities net sales increased 119.1% to $24.8 million in 2015 from $11.3 million, driven entirely by $17.3 million of acquired product sales from the Wright/Tornier merger. Additionally, 2015 sales included a $1.1 million unfavorable foreign currency impact which had a 9 percentage point unfavorable impact on the growth rate.

Our international biologics net sales decreased 4.6% to $19.7 million, wholly attributable to a $2.0 million unfavorable foreign currency impact, which had a 10 percentage point unfavorable impact on the growth rate.
Cost of sales
Our cost of sales totaled $113.6 million, or 28.0% of net sales, in 2015, compared to $73.2 million, or 24.6% of net sales, in 2014, representing an increase of 3.4 percentage points as a warrant liabilitypercentage of net sales. This increase was primarily driven by $10.3 million (2.5% of net sales) of inventory step-up amortization in 2015 associated with an offsetting debt discountinventory acquired from the Wright/Tornier merger, as well as increased provisions for excess and obsolete inventory and inventory losses.
Selling, general and administrative
As a percentage of net sales, selling, general and administrative expenses increased to reduce104.7% in 2015, compared to 97.2% in 2014. Selling, general and administrative expense included $75.9 million (18.7% of net sales) and $31.9 million (10.7% of net sales) of due diligence, transition, and transaction costs associated with the carrying valueWright/Tornier merger and other recent acquisitions in 2015 and 2014, respectively. For 2015, selling, general and administrative expense also included a $13.1 million (3.2% of net sales) share-based compensation charge for accelerated vesting of outstanding unvested awards upon closing of the notes payableWright/Tornier merger. For 2014, selling, general and administrative expense also included $1.2 million of costs related to management changes (0.4% of net sales) and $0.9 million of costs related to a patent dispute settlement (0.3% of net sales). The remaining selling, general and administrative expenses decrease as a percentage of sales was driven primarily by leveraging general and administrative expenses over increased net sales.
Research and development
Our investment in research and development activities represented 9.7% and 8.4% of net sales in 2015 and 2014, respectively. Research and development costs increased as a percentage of net sales in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily attributable to spending to support our product portfolio.
Amortization of intangible assets
Charges associated with amortization of intangible assets totaled $16.8 million in 2015, compared to $10.0 million in 2014. This increase was driven by amortization of intangible assets acquired as part of the estimated fair value at the timeWright/Tornier merger, as well as a $1.8 million write-off of issuance. This debt discount was then amortized as additionala legacy Wright intangible asset.
Interest expense, net
Interest expense, net totaled $41.4 million in 2015 and $17.4 million in 2014. Increased interest expense overwas driven by the termincrease in debt outstanding following the issuance of the notes. At the time of repayment2020 Notes in the first quarter of 2011, we recognized2015. Our 2015 interest expense related primarily to non-cash interest expense associated with the remaining unamortized portionamortization of the discount on the 2020 Notes and 2017 Notes of $21.8 million and $2.9 million, respectively; amortization of deferred financing charges on the 2020 Notes and 2017 Notes of $2.7 million and $0.5 million, respectively; and cash interest expense on the 2020 Notes and 2017 Notes totaling $12.8 million. Our 2014 interest expense related primarily to non-cash interest expense associated with the amortization of the discount on the 2017 Notes of $9.3 million, as well as cash interest expense on the 2017 Notes totaling $6.0 million.
Our interest income generated in 2015 and 2014 was approximately $0.3 million in both years, and was generated by our invested cash balances and investments in marketable securities.
Other expense, net
Other expense, net was $10.9 million of expense in 2015, compared to $129.6 million of income in 2014. For 2015, other expense, net includes a gain of $7.6 million for the mark-to-market adjustment on the CVRs issued in connection with the BioMimetic acquisition, as well as an unrealized gain of $9.8 million for the mark-to-market adjustment on our derivatives, offset by a $25.1 million charge for write-off of pro-rata unamortized deferred financing fees and debt discount with repayment of $240 million of the 2017 Notes. For 2014, other expense, net includes an unrealized loss of $125.0 million for the mark-to-market adjustment on the CVRs issued in connection with the BioMimetic acquisition, $1.8 million for the fair value adjustment for contingent consideration associated with the WG Healthcare acquisition, and an unrealized loss of $2.0 million for net mark-to-market adjustments on our derivative asset and liability.
Benefit for income taxes
We recorded a tax benefit of $3.7 million in 2015 and $6.3 million in 2014. During 2015, our effective tax rate was approximately 1.7%, as compared to 2.6% in 2014. Our 2015 tax benefit was primarily attributable to losses benefited in jurisdictions where we did not have a valuation allowance. Our 2014 tax benefit included $5.5 million of benefit recorded in continuing operations as a result of the gain realized in discontinued operations. Our relatively low effective tax rate in both periods was primarily related to the valuation allowance on our U.S. net deferred tax assets, resulting in the inability to recognize a tax benefit for pre-tax losses in the United States except to the extent to which we recognize a gain in discontinued operations.

Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax consists of the operations of the OrthoRecon business that was sold to MicroPort and, for 2015, the Large Joints business that was sold to Corin.
For 2014, net loss from discontinued operations included operations from January 1 through January 9, 2014, which was the closing date of the MicroPort transaction, costs associated with external legal defense fees, and changes to any contingent liabilities associated with the OrthoRecon business, as well as the $24.3 million gain on the extinguishmentsale of debt.

Other non-operating income. Our other non-operatingthe OrthoRecon business. Subsequent to the closing date, costs associated with legal defense, income/loss associated with product liability insurance recoveries/denials, and changes to any contingent liabilities associated with the OrthoRecon business have been reflected within results of discontinued operations. For 2015, net loss from discontinued operations included legal defense and product liability associated with the OrthoRecon business and the operations of the Large Joints business from October 1, 2015, the date of the Wright/Tornier merger, through December 27, 2015.

Reportable segments
The following tables set forth, for the periods indicated, net sales and operating income decreased to $0.1(loss) of our reportable segments expressed as dollar amounts (in thousands) and as a percentage of net sales:
 Fiscal year ended December 27, 2015
 
U.S. Lower Extremities
& Biologics
 U.S. Upper Extremities 
International Extremities
& Biologics
Net sales$239,748
 $60,075
 $105,503
Operating income (loss)$39,008
 $21,394
 $(5,567)
Operating income (loss) as a percent of net sales16.3% 35.6% (5.3)%
 Fiscal year ended December 31, 2014
 U.S. Lower Extremities
& Biologics
 U.S. Upper Extremities International Extremities
& Biologics
Net sales$196,766
 $15,311
 $85,950
Operating income (loss)$29,200
 $6,582
 $(3,187)
Operating income (loss) as a percent of net sales14.8% 43.0% (3.7)%
Net sales of our U.S. lower extremities and biologics segment increased $43.0 million in 2012 from $1.32015 over the prior year. This increase was driven by continued success of our Total Ankle Replacement products, growth in our core foot and ankle plating systems, as well as the impact of the Wright/Tornier merger. Operating income of our U.S. lower extremities and biologics segment increased $9.8 million in 2011. The $1.32015 as compared to 2014. This increase was driven by leveraging expenses, as net sales increased at a higher rate than operating expenses.
Net sales of our U.S. upper extremities segment increased $44.8 million in 20112015 over the prior year. This increase was driven almost entirely by the impact of the Wright/Tornier merger. Operating income of our U.S. upper extremities segment increased $14.8 million in 2015 as compared to 2014. This increase was driven almost entirely by the acquired Tornier business.
Net sales of our International extremities and biologics segment increased $19.6 million in 2015 over the prior year. This increase was primarily due to the recognitionimpact of a gain related to the resolutionWright/Tornier merger. Operating loss of our contingent liability recordedInternational extremities and biologics segment increased $2.4 in 2015 as a partcompared to 2014. This increase was primarily driven by the acquired Tornier business.
Seasonality and Quarterly Fluctuations
We traditionally experience lower sales volumes in the third quarter than throughout the rest of the year as many of our acquisition of C2M Medical Inc.

Income tax (expense) benefit.Our effective tax rate was 33.5%products are used in 2012 and 21.6%elective procedures, which generally decline during the summer months. This typically results in 2011. The change in our effective tax rate from 2011 to 2012 primarily related to the relative percentage of our pre-tax income from operations in countries with related income tax expense compared to operations in countries in which we have pre-tax losses but for which we record a valuation allowance against deferred tax assets, and thus, cannot recognize income tax benefits. In connection with our acquisition of OrthoHelix in 2012, we recorded deferred tax liabilities of $11.9 million, which included $10.7 million related to amortizable intangible assets and $1.2 million related to indefinite-lived acquired in-process research and development. The deferred tax liabilities of $10.7 million related to the amortizable intangibles reduced our net deferred tax assets by a like amount and in a manner that provides predictable future taxable income over the asset amortization period. As a result, we reduced our pre-acquisition deferred tax asset valuation allowance in 2012 by $10.7 million, which has been reflected as an income tax benefit in our consolidated statements of operations. Although the deferred tax liability of $1.2 million related to acquired in-process research and development also reduced our net deferred tax assets by a like amount, it did so in a manner that did not provide predictable future taxable income because the related asset was indefinite-lived. Therefore, the deferred tax asset valuation allowance was not reduced as a result of this item. As a result, our income tax benefit increased to $10.9 million in 2012 compared to an income tax benefit of $8.4 million in 2011.

Foreign Currency Exchange Rates

A substantial portion of our business is located outside the United States, and as a result, we generate revenue and incur expenses denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. As a result, fluctuations in the value of foreign currencies relative to the U.S. dollar can impact our operating results. The majority of our operations denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar are denominated in Euros. In 2013 and 2012, approximately 41% and 44%, respectively, of our revenue was denominated in foreign currencies. As a result, our revenue can be significantly impacted by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. We expect that foreign currencies will continue to represent a similarly significant percentage of our revenue in the future. Selling, marketing and administrative costs related to these sales are largely denominated in the same foreign currencies, thereby limiting our foreign currency transaction risk exposure. In addition, we also have significant levels of other selling, general and administrative expenses and research and development expenses denominated in foreign currencies. We, therefore, believeas a percentage of net sales that are higher during this period than throughout the risk of a significant impact on our earnings from foreign currency fluctuations is mitigated to some extent.

A substantial portionrest of the productsyear. In addition, our first quarter selling, general and administrative expenses include additional expenses that we sellincur in connection with the United States are manufactured in countries where costs are incurred in Euros. Fluctuations inannual meetings held by the Euro to U.S. dollar exchange rate will have an impact onAmerican College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons and the costAmerican Academy of the productsOrthopaedic Surgeons. During these three-day events, we manufacture in those countries, but we would not likely be able to changedisplay our U.S. dollar selling prices of those samemost recent and innovative products in the United States in response to those cost fluctuations. As a result, fluctuations in the Euro to U.S. dollar exchange rates could have a significant impact on our gross profit in future periods in which that inventory is sold. Impacts associated with fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates are discussed in more detail under “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.”

We evaluate our results of operations on both an as reported and a constant currency basis. The constant currency presentation is a non-GAAP financial measure, which excludes the impact of fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. We believe providing constant currency information provides valuable supplemental information regarding our results of operations, consistent with how we evaluate our performance. We calculate constant currency percentages by converting our current-period local currency financial results using the prior-period foreign currency exchange rates and comparing these adjusted amounts to our prior-period reported results. This calculation may differ from similarly-titled measures used by others; and, accordingly, the constant currency presentation is not meant to be a substitution for recorded amounts presented in conformity with GAAP nor should such amounts be considered in isolation.

Seasonality and Quarterly Fluctuations

Our business is seasonal in nature. Historically, demand for our products has been the lowest in our third quarter as a result of the European holiday schedule during the summer months.

lower extremities market.

We have experienced and expect to continue to experience meaningful variability in our revenuenet sales and gross profitcost of sales as a percentage of net sales among quarters, as well as within each quarter, as a result of a number of factors including, among other things, the transitions to direct selling models in certain geographies and the transition of our U.S. sales channel towards focusing separately on upper and lower extremity products; the number and mix of products sold in the quarter and the geographies in which they are sold; the demand for, and pricing of our

products and the products of our competitors; the timing of or failure to obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for products; costs, benefits, and timing of new product introductions; the level of competition; the timing and extent of promotional pricing or volume discounts; changes in average selling prices; the availability and cost of components and materials; number of selling days; fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; the timing of patients’ use of their calendar year medical insurance deductibles; and impairment and other special charges.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Working Capital

Since inception,

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, certain liquidity measures (in thousands):
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Cash and cash equivalents$262,265
 $139,804
Restricted cash150,000
 
Working capital285,107
 352,946
Operating activities. Cash provided by (used in) operating activities totaled $37.8 million, ($195.9 million), and ($116.0 million) in 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively. The increase in cash provided by operating activities in 2016 as compared to the cash used in operating activities in 2015 was driven by higher cash profitability due to decreased spending on transition and transaction expenses and leveraged expenses following the Wright/Tornier merger, the receipt of $60 million insurance proceeds associated with metal-on-metal product liabilities (see Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for further discussion), and a 2015 milestone payment associated with the BioMimetic acquisition upon the FDA approval of AUGMENT® Bone Graft totaling $98 million, of which $28 million represented the excess over the value originally assigned as part of the purchase price allocation and was included as a cash outflow within operating activities.
The increase in cash used in operating activities in 2015 compared to 2014 was due to lower cash profitability, primarily due to costs associated with the Wright/Tornier merger and the BioMimetic milestone payment.
Investing activities. Our capital expenditures totaled $50.1 million in 2016, $43.7 million in 2015, and $48.6 million in 2014. Of the $50.1 million in capital expenditures in 2016, $35.1 million was for routine capital expenditures, primarily purchased surgical instrumentation, and $15.0 million was for capital expenditures associated with integration activities of the Wright/Tornier merger, including spending on computer systems and facilities as we integrated operations in certain international markets. Historically, our capital expenditures have generatedconsisted principally of purchased instruments, manufacturing equipment, research and testing equipment, and computer systems. However, capital expenditures in 2014 also included expansion of our manufacturing facility in Arlington, Tennessee and our U.S. corporate headquarters and capital expenditures in 2015 included capital spending on system integrations resulting from the Wright/Tornier merger and completion of the expansion of our U.S. corporate headquarters.
During 2016, we received proceeds of $20.7 million related to the sale of the Large Joints business. See Note 4 to our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information regarding this sale.
During 2015, we acquired $30 million of cash, primarily as a result of the Wright/Tornier merger since the merger was an all-stock transaction and we paid for the acquisition of the Surgical Specialties sales and distribution business. In 2014, we paid an aggregate of $81 million in cash, net of cash acquired, for the Solana and OrthoPro acquisitions.
Financing activities. During 2016, cash provided by financing activities totaled $270.4 million, compared to $126.9 million in 2015 and $33.1 million in 2014. The cash provided by financing activities in both periods was primarily attributable to the net proceeds received from the issuance of convertible notes, partially offset by the partial settlement of previously outstanding convertible notes. During 2016, we also received $30 million from the ABL Facility. See Note 6 and Note 9 of our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information regarding our derivative and debt activity, respectively.
As of October 1, 2015, legacy Tornier had approximately $75 million in outstanding term debt and $7 million in a line of credit under a pre-existing credit agreement.  Upon completion of the Wright/Tornier merger, we terminated all commitments under this credit agreement and repaid approximately $81 million in outstanding indebtedness. We did not incur any early termination penalties in connection with such repayment and termination.
During 2015, we paid a milestone payment associated with the BioMimetic acquisition upon FDA approval of AUGMENT® Bone Graft totaling $98 million, of which $70 million represented the value originally assigned as part of the purchase price allocation and was included as a cash outflow from financing activities.

During 2016 and 2015, we received $8.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, of cash in connection with the issuance of shares under our share-based compensation plan, as compared to $37.2 million in 2014. The amount received in 2014 was driven primarily by stock option exercises of former employees transferred to MicroPort following the sale of the OrthoRecon business.
Repatriation. As of December 25, 2016, approximately $13.4 million of our cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash was held by certain U.S.-controlled non-U.S. subsidiaries which may not represent available liquidity for general corporate purposes. We provide for tax liabilities in our consolidated financial statements with respect to amounts that we expect to repatriate from subsidiaries (to the extent the repatriation would be subject to tax); however, no tax liabilities are recorded for amounts that we consider to be permanently reinvested. Our current plans do not foresee a need to repatriate funds that are designated as permanently reinvested in order to fund our operations or meet currently anticipated liquidity and capital investment needs.
Discontinued operations. Cash flows from discontinued operations are combined with cash flows from continuing operations in the consolidated statements of cash flows. Cash flows from discontinued operations include those related to both the Large Joints and OrthoRecon businesses.
During the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, cash provided by operating and investing activities from the Large Joints business totaled $5.2 million and $20.7 million, respectively. Cash provided by operating activities from the OrthoRecon business totaled $16.7 million, primarily due to the receipt of the $60 million insurance settlement offset by legal defense costs and settlement of product liabilities.
During the fiscal year ended December 27, 2015, cash provided by operating activities from the Large Joints business totaled $2.9 million. Cash used by operating activities from the OrthoRecon business was approximately $28 million associated with legal defense costs and settlement of product liabilities, net of insurance proceeds received.
During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, cash provided by the OrthoRecon business was approximately $250.5 million driven by the cash received from the sale of the OrthoRecon business.
During 2017 we expect significant cash outflows resulting from product liabilities, including the $240 million MSA settlement described in Note 16. We do not expect that the future cash outflows from discontinued operations will have an impact on our ability to meet contractual cash obligations and fund our working capital requirements, operations, and anticipated capital expenditures.
Contractual cash obligations. At December 25, 2016, we had contractual cash obligations and commercial commitments as follows (in thousands):
 Payments due by periods
 Contractual obligations
Total Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years More than 5 years
Amounts reflected in consolidated balance sheet:         
Capital lease obligations(1)
$18,258
 $2,294
 $4,408
 $3,733
 $7,823
Notes Payable(2)
988,842
 2,587
 694
 982,650
 2,911
          
Amounts not reflected in consolidated balance sheet:         
Operating leases39,088
 9,740
 13,419
 7,634
 8,295
Interest on notes payable(3)
80,294
 20,776
 41,357
 18,161
 
          
Total contractual cash obligations$1,126,482
 $35,397
 $59,878
 $1,012,178
 $19,029

(1)Payments include amounts representing interest.
(2)
Our notes payable include 2017 Notes, 2020 Notes, 2021 Notes, shareholder debt, and mortgages. See further discussion in Note 9 to our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
(3)
Represents interest on 2017 Notes, 2020 Notes, 2021 Notes, shareholder debt, and mortgages. See further discussion in Note 9 to our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
The amounts reflected in the table above exclude product liabilities, including the $240 million settlement of certain metal-on-metal hip replacement product liability litigation, described in Note 16.
Portions of these payments are denominated in foreign currencies and were translated in the table above based on their respective U.S. dollar exchange rates at December 25, 2016. These future payments are subject to foreign currency exchange rate risk.

The amounts reflected in the table above for capital lease obligations represent future minimum lease payments under our capital lease agreements, which are primarily for certain property and equipment. The present value of the minimum lease payments are recorded in our consolidated balance sheet at December 25, 2016. The minimum lease payments related to these leases are discussed further in Note 9 to our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
The amounts reflected in the table above for operating losses resultingleases represent future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases primarily for certain equipment and office space. In accordance with US GAAP, our operating leases are not recognized on our consolidated balance sheets; however, the minimum lease payments related to these agreements are disclosed in Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
The table above does not include the 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative (see "Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk" for quantitative analysis on possible cash obligations upon maturity at various assumed stock prices).
The table above also does not include certain contingent consideration. Contingent consideration of up to $84 million may be paid upon reaching certain revenue milestones related to the BioMimetic acquisition. If, prior to March 1, 2019, sales of AUGMENT® Bone Graft reach $40 million over 12 consecutive months, a cash payment would be required at $1.50 per share, or $42 million. Further, if, prior to March 1, 2019, sales of AUGMENT® Bone Graft reach $70 million over 12 consecutive months, an accumulated deficitadditional cash payment would be required at $1.50 per share, or $42 million. In addition, contingent consideration of $272.2up to $1.7 million and $0.4 million may be paid upon achieving revenue milestones related to the acquisitions of Surgical Specialties Australia Pty and WG Healthcare, respectively. These potential additional cash payments are based on the future financial performance of the acquired assets. The estimated fair value of these liabilities has been recorded on our consolidated balance sheets within "Accrued expenses and other current liabilities" and "Other long-term liabilities" as described in Note 6.
In addition to the contractual cash obligations discussed above, all of our U.S. net sales and a portion of our international net sales are subject to commissions based on net sales. A substantial portion of our global net sales are subject to royalties earned based on product sales.
Additionally, as of December 29, 2013. Historically,25, 2016, we had approximately $8 million of unrecognized tax benefits recorded on our consolidated balance sheet. This represents the tax benefits associated with various tax positions taken, or expected to be taken, on U.S. and international tax returns that have not been recognized in our financial statements due to uncertainty regarding their resolution. We are unable to make a reliable estimate of the eventual cash flows by period that may be required to settle these matters. Certain of these matters may not require cash settlement due to the existence of net operating loss carryforwards. Therefore, our unrecognized tax benefits are not included in the table above. See Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
Other liquidity information. We have funded our cash needs since 2000 through various equity and debt issuances and through cash flow from operations.
On December 23, 2016, we, together with WMG and certain of our other wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries, entered into a Credit, Security and Guaranty Agreement (ABL Credit Agreement) with Midcap Financial Trust, as administrative agent (Agent) and a lender and the additional lenders from time to time party thereto. The ABL Credit Agreement provides for a $150 million senior secured asset based line of credit, subject to the satisfaction of a borrowing base requirement (ABL Facility). The ABL Facility may be increased by up to $100 million upon our request, subject to the consent of the Agent and each of the other lenders providing such increase and the satisfaction of customary conditions. As of December 25, 2016, we had $30 million in borrowings outstanding under the ABL Facility.
On November 1, 2016, WMT entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the metal-on-metal hip replacement product liability litigation pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the MDL) and the California State Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (the JCCP). Under the terms of the MSA, the parties agreed to settle 1,292 specifically identified claims associated with CONSERVE®, DYNASTY® and LINEAGE® products that meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or subject to court-approved tolling agreements in the MDL or JCCP, for a settlement amount of $240 million.  As of December 25, 2016, our accrual for metal-on-metal claims totaled $256.7 million, of which $242.8 million is included in our consolidated balance sheet within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities” and $13.9 million is included within “Other liabilities.”  See Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements for additional discussion regarding the MSA and our accrual methodologies for the metal-on-metal hip replacement product liability claims.
During the fourth quarter of 2016, WMT deposited $150 million into a restricted escrow account to secure its obligations under the MSA. All individual settlements under the MSA will be funded first from the escrow account and then, if all funds held in the escrow account have been met throughexhausted, directly by WMT. As of December 25, 2016, $150 million was in the restricted escrow account, and therefore, considered restricted cash under U.S. GAAP. See Note 16 and Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements for further discussion regarding the MSA, the metal-on-metal hip litigation and the funding for such claims.

In May 2016, we issued $395 million aggregate principal amount of the 2021 Notes, which, after consideration of the exchange of approximately $54 million principal amount of the 2017 Notes and $45 million principal amount of the 2020 Notes, generated net proceeds of approximately $237.5 million. In connection with the offering of the 2021 Notes, we entered into convertible note hedging transactions with two counterparties. We also entered into warrant transactions in which we sold stock warrants for an aggregate of 18.5 million ordinary shares to these two counterparties. We used approximately $45 million of the net proceeds from the offering to pay the cost of the convertible note hedging transactions (after such cost was partially offset by the proceeds we received from the sale of the warrants).
In February 2015, WMG issued $632.5 million of the 2020 Notes, which generated net proceeds of approximately $613 million. In connection with the offering of the 2020 Notes, WMG entered into convertible note hedging transactions with three counterparties. WMG also entered into warrant transactions in which WMG sold warrants for an aggregate of 20,489,142 shares of WMG common stock to these three counterparties. WMG used approximately $58 million of the net proceeds from the offering to pay the cost of the convertible note hedging transactions (after such cost was partially offset by the proceeds we received from the sale of the warrants). WMG also used approximately $292 million of the net proceeds from the offering to repurchase approximately $240 million aggregate principal amount of outstanding 2017 Notes in privately negotiated transactions. On November 24, 2015, we entered into a combinationsupplemental indenture to the indenture governing the 2020 Notes which provided for, among other things, our full and unconditional guarantee, on a senior unsecured basis, of salesall of WMG's obligations relating to the 2010 Notes and to make certain other adjustments to the terms of the indenture to give effect to the Wright/Tornier merger. Also on November 24, 2015, we assumed the warrants initially issued by WMG in connection with the 2020 Notes offering.
Although it is difficult for us to predict our equity and commercial debt financing. Wefuture liquidity requirements, we believe that our cash, and cash equivalents and restricted cash balance of approximately $56.8$412.3 million, together with $120 million in availability under our ABL Credit Agreement as of December 29, 2013, along with $30.0 million of available credit under our revolving credit facility,25, 2016, will be sufficient for the next 12 months to fund our working capital requirements and operations, including recent and potential acquisitions to continue our U.S. sales channel transition and international expansion, and permit anticipated capital expenditures duringin 2017 of approximately $50 million, pay retained liabilities of the next twelve months. OrthoRecon business, including without limitation amounts under the MSA, and meet our anticipated contractual cash obligations in 2017. However, our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including our future net sales and expenses.
In the event that we would require additional working capital to fund future operations, or for other needs, we could seek to acquire that through additional issuances of equity or additional debt financing arrangements which may or may not be available on favorable terms at such time.

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, certain liquidity measures:

   As of 
   December 29, 2013   December 30, 2012 
   ($ in thousands) 

Cash and cash equivalents

  $56,784    $31,108  

Working capital

   150,209     136,692  

Available lines of credit

   30,000     29,000  

Total short and long term debt

   69,081     120,052  

Total working capital was positively impacted during 2013 as a result of the completion If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our shareholders may experience dilution. Debt financing, if available, may involve covenants restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt, in addition to those under our existing indentures. Any debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our shareholders. If we do not have, or are not able to obtain, sufficient funds, we may have to delay development or commercialization of our underwritten public offering in May 2013, partially offset by the subsequent repayment of certain long-term debt. The offering consisted of 8.1 million ordinary shares at a public offering price of $16.15 per share. Pursuant to the offering, we sold 5.2 million shares and certain shareholders sold 2.9 million shares, both of which were inclusive of the exercise of the underwriters’ over-allotment option. We received $78.7 million in net proceeds from the offering, net of the underwriters’ discount and commissions and offering expenses, and used approximately $50.5 million of the net proceeds to repayproducts or scale back our $40.0 million Euro denominated term loan and a portion of our U.S. dollar denominated term loan. operations.

We intend to use the remaining net proceeds from this offering for working capitalour cash balance and general corporate purposes.

Credit Facility

The term loans that were repaid in 2013 related to our credit facility that was entered into in October 2012any additional financing to fund transaction and transition costs associated with the Wright/Tornier merger, to fund growth opportunities for our acquisition of OrthoHelix. Under the credit facility, we obtained credit of $145 million, consisting of: (1) a senior secured term loan facility denominated in U.S. dollars in an aggregate principal amount of up to $75 million (referred to as the USD term loan facility); (2) a senior secured term loan facility denominated in Euros in an aggregate principal amount of up to the U.S. dollar equivalent of $40 million (referred to as the EUR term loan facility);extremities and (3) a senior secured revolving credit facility denominated at our election, in U.S. dollars, Euros, pounds, sterlingbiologics business, and yen in an aggregate principal amount of up to the U.S. dollar equivalent of $30 million. The borrowings under the term loan facilities were used to pay a portioncertain retained liabilities of the OrthoHelix acquisition consideration,OrthoRecon business.

In-process research and fees, costs and expenses incurred indevelopment. In connection with the BioMimetic acquisition, we acquired in-process research and development (IPRD) technology related to projects that had not yet reached technological feasibility as of the acquisition date, which included AUGMENT® Injectable Bone Graft. The acquisition date fair value of the IPRD technology was $27.1 million for AUGMENT® Injectable Bone Graft. The fair value of the IPRD technology was reduced to $0 as of December 31, 2014, which reflects the impairment charges recognized in 2013 after receipt of the not approvable letter from the FDA in response to a pre-market approval (PMA) application for AUGMENT® Bone Graft for use as an alternative to autograft in hindfoot and ankle fusion procedures.
In connection with the Wright/Tornier merger, we acquired IPRD technology related to three projects that had not yet reached technological feasibility as of the merger date. These projects included PerFORM Rev/Rev+, AEQUALIS® Adjustable Reversed Ext (AARE) (re-branded in 2016 to AEQUALIS® Flex Revive), and PerFORM+ that were assigned fair values of $14.5 million, $2.1 million, and $0.4 million, respectively, on the acquisition date. During 2016, we received FDA clearance of PerFORM Rev/Rev+ and PerFORM+.
The current IPRD projects we acquired in our BioMimetic acquisition and the credit agreementWright/Tornier merger are as follows:
AUGMENT® Injectable Bone Graft (Augment Injectable) combines rhPDGF-BB with an injectable bone matrix, and is targeted to be used in either open (surgical) treatment of fusions and fractures or closed (non-surgical) or minimally invasive treatment of fractures. AUGMENT® Injectable can be injected into a fusion or fracture site during an open surgical procedure, or it can be injected through the skin into a fracture site, in either case locally delivering rhPDGF-BB to promote fusion or fracture repair. Our initial clinical development program for AUGMENT® Injectable has focused on securing regulatory approval for open indications in the United States and in several markets outside the United States. We currently estimate it could take one to three years to complete this project. We have incurred expenses of approximately

$4.9 million for AUGMENT® Injectable since the date of acquisition and to repay prior existing indebtedness. As of December 29, 2013, we had $60.9$1.2 million of term debt outstanding under this credit facility. The term loan matures in October 2017. Funds available under the revolving credit facility may be used for general corporate purposes.

At our option, borrowings under our revolving credit facility and our U.S. dollar denominated term loan facility bear interest at (a) the alternate base rate (if denominated in U.S. dollars), equal to the greatest of (i) the prime rate in effect on such day, (ii) the federal funds rate in effect on such day plus 1/2 of 1%, and (iii) the adjusted LIBO rate plus 1%, plus in the case of each of (i)-(iii) above, an applicable rate of 2.00% or 2.25% (depending on our total net leverage ratio as defined in our credit agreement), or (b) the applicable adjusted LIBO rate for the relevant interest period plus an applicable rate of 3.00% or 3.25% (depending on our total net leverage ratio), plus the mandatory cost (as defined in our credit agreement) if such loan is made in a currency other than U.S. dollars or from a lending office in the United Kingdom or a participating member state (as defined in our credit agreement). In addition, weyear ended December 25, 2016. We are subject to a 0.5% interest rate on the unfunded balancecurrently evaluating future costs related to AUGMENT® Injectable following the lineFDA approval of credit.

The credit agreement contains customary covenants, including financial covenants which require us to maintain minimum interest coverage and maximum total net leverage ratios, and customary events of default. The obligations under the credit agreement are guaranteed by us, Tornier USA and certain otherAUGMENT®.

AEQUALIS® Adjustable Reversed Ext (AARE) will ultimately be our second-generation revision product, with an improved implant that is convertible and addresses more indications, and a revamped instrument set that includes universal extraction instrumentation. The implants in this system are complete from a design standpoint, have regulatory approval, and are being sold using a previous generation of instrumentation in a limited capacity. The instruments for the new revision system are currently in design phase. We have an anticipated completion date in 2018 and project cost to complete is estimated to be less than $1 million. However, the risks and uncertainties associated with completion are dependent upon testing validations and FDA clearance.
Critical Accounting Estimates
All of our subsidiaries,significant accounting policies and subjectestimates are described in Note 2 to certain exceptions, are secured by a first priority security interest in substantially all of our assets and the assets of certain of our existing and future subsidiaries of Tornier. We were in compliance with all covenants as of December 29, 2013.

Other Liquidity Information

In connection with our acquisition of OrthoHelix, we agreed to pay in cash additional earn-out payments of up to an aggregate of $20 million based upon our sales of lower extremity joints and trauma products during fiscal years 2013 and 2014. As a result of the earn-out, we expect to pay $4.6 million based on growth in revenue of our lower extremity joints and trauma products during 2013 over 2012.

In addition, in connection with the acquisitions of certain stocking distributors in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom and certain U.S. distributors and independent sales agencies during 2013, we agreed to pay in cash additional contingent consideration of $2.5 million over the next two years.

Cash Flows

The following summarizes the components of our consolidated statements of cash flows for the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012:

Operating activities. Net cash provided by operating activities was $25.0 million in 2013 compared to $14.4 million in 2012. This increase of $10.6 million in operating cash flow was attributable to a decrease in our consolidated net loss that was cash related in 2013 and an increase in cash from working capital of $6.3 million.

Net cash provided by operating activities decreased by $8.8 million to $14.4 million in 2012 compared to $23.2 million in 2011. The primary driver of this decrease was the increase in the portion of our consolidated net loss that was cash related. Our 2011 consolidated net loss of $30.5 million included a $29.5 million non-cash loss on the extinguishment of debt, while our 2012 consolidated net loss of $21.7 million included significant cash charges for our facilities consolidation initiative, the acquisition and integration of OrthoHelix, and certain senior management exit costs, among other items.

Investing activities. Net cash used in investing activities totaled $47.7 million, $125.8 million and $29.5 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The decrease in net cash used in investing activities in 2013 compared to 2012 was primarily driven by our 2012 acquisition of OrthoHelix, which had included cash consideration of $100.4 million. In 2013, we used approximately $10.1 million for acquisition related payments related to the acquisition of stocking distributors in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia and the acquisition of certain U.S. independent sales agencies.

Our industry is capital intensive, particularly as it relates to surgical instrumentation. Our instrument additions were $23.8 million, $12.0 million and $19.7 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Instrument additions in 2013 were higher than both 2012 and 2011 due to the global launch of products acquired in 2012 from OrthoHelix and the 2013 launches of the Aequalis Ascend Flex and Latitude EV. 2011 instrument additions were higher than 2012 instrument additions as we used a portion of our 2011 initial public offering proceeds to make additional investments in instrumentation to support anticipated future revenue growth. Our expenditures related to property, plant and equipment were $10.8 million, $11.3 million and $6.6 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The increase in property, plant and equipment expenditures in 2013 and 2012 as compared to 2011 was driven by our investments in a global Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system in 2013 and the move of our U.S. sales and distribution activities from Stafford, Texas to Bloomington, Minnesota in 2012. We anticipate that capital expenditures in 2014 will approximate recent historical levels.

Financing activities.Net cash provided by financing activities decreased to $47.0 million in 2013 from $86.7 million in 2012. The $47.0 million in net cash provided by financing activities in 2013 included $78.7 million in net proceeds raised from our May 2013 underwritten public offering and $21.5 million received from stock option exercises, partially offset by $54.1 million in payments made on our senior secured term loans. The $86.7 million in net cash provided by financing activities in 2012 included $121.0 million in proceeds from the issuance of debt incurred to fund our acquisition of OrthoHelix, partially offset by the repayment of our previously existing long term debt. The increase in net cash provided by financing activities in 2012 compared to 2011 was due to the debt issued to fund our acquisition of OrthoHelix in 2012, partially offset by the repayment of a majority of our previously existing debt, which was a requirement under the new credit agreement.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following table summarizes our outstanding contractual obligations as of December 29, 2013 for the categories set forth below, assuming only scheduled amortizations and repayment at maturity:

   Payment Due By Period 
Contractual Obligations  Total   Less than
1 Year
   1 - 3 Years   3 - 5 Years   More than
5 Years
 
   ($ in thousands) 

Amounts reflected in consolidated balance sheet:

          

Bank debt

  $65,848    $977    $2,339    $61,985    $547  

Shareholder loan

   2,319     —       —       —       2,319  

Contingent consideration

   12,956     6,428     6,528     —       —    

Capital leases

   914     461     383     70     —    

Amounts not reflected in consolidated balance sheet:

          

Interest on bank debt

   9,603     2,776     5,436     1,376     15  

Interest on contingent consideration

   807     721     86     —       —    

Interest on capital leases

   67     40     25     2     —    

Operating leases

   28,143     5,410     8,035     6,336     8,362  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

  $120,657    $16,813    $22,832    $69,769    $11,243  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined by the rules and regulations of the SEC, that have or are reasonably likely to have a material effect on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenue or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources. As a result, we are not materially exposed to any financing, liquidity, market or credit risk that could arise if we had engaged in these arrangements.

Critical Accounting Policies

Our consolidated financial statements and related financial information are based on the application of U.S. GAAP. The preparation of our consolidated financial statements contained in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires us to make estimatesItem 8. Financial Statements and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes.

Supplementary Data.” Certain of our more critical accounting policiesestimates require the application of significant judgment by management in selecting the appropriate assumptions for calculating financial estimates.in determining the estimate. By their nature, these judgments are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty. TheseWe develop these judgments are based on our historical experience, terms of existing contracts, our observance of trends in the industry, information provided by our physician customers, and information available from other outside sources, as appropriate. ChangesDifferent, reasonable estimates could have been used in the current period. Additionally, changes in accounting estimates are reasonably likely to occur from period to period. Changes inBoth of these estimates and changes in our businessfactors could have a material impact on the presentation of our consolidated financial statements.

condition, changes in financial condition, or results of operations.

We believe that the following accounting policiesfinancial estimates are both important to the portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations and require subjective or complex judgments. Further, we believe that the items discussed below are properly recognizedrecorded in our consolidated financial statements for all periods presented. ManagementOur management has discussed the development, selection, and disclosure of our most critical financial estimates with the audit committee andof our board of directors.directors and with our independent auditors. The judgments about those financial estimates are based on information available as of the date of our consolidated financial statements. Our critical accounting policiesThose financial estimates include:
Discontinued operations.On October 21, 2016, pursuant to the binding offer letter dated as of July 8, 2016, we, Corin, and estimates are described below:

Revenue Recognition

We derive our revenue fromcertain other entities related to us entered into a business sale agreement and simultaneously completed and closed the sale of medical devices that are used by orthopaedicour business operations formerly operating under the Large Joints segment. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we sold substantially all of our assets related to our hip and general surgeons who treat diseases and disorders of extremity joints, including the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, ankle and foot, andknee, or large joints, business to Corin for approximately €29.7 million in cash, less approximately €10.7 million for net working capital adjustments.

We determined that the Large Joints business meets the criteria for classification as discontinued operations. All historical operating results for the Large Joints business, including costs associated with corporate employees and infrastructure to be transferred as a part of the sale, are reflected within discontinued operations in our consolidated statements of operations. Further, all assets and associated liabilities transferred to Corin were classified as assets and liabilities held for sale in our consolidated balance sheets for all periods presented. We recognized an impairment loss on held for sale classification of $21.3 million before the effect of income taxes, during 2016 based on the difference between the net carrying value of the assets and liabilities held for sale and the purchase price, less estimated adjustments and costs to sell. This loss was recorded within "Net loss from discontinued operations" in our consolidated statements of operations. All current operating results for the Large Joints business are reflected within discontinued operations in our consolidated financial statements.
On January 9, 2014, legacy Wright completed the sale of the OrthoRecon business, which consists of legacy Wright's hip and knee.knee product implants, to MicroPort. We determined that this transaction meets the criteria for classification as discontinued operations under the provisions of FASB ASC 205-20. As such, all historical operating results for the OrthoRecon business are reflected within discontinued operations in our consolidated statements of operations. As this sale occurred in early 2014, costs for 2014, 2015 and 2016 primarily relate to product liability claims, including legal defense, settlements and judgments, and changes in contingent liabilities net of product liability insurance recoveries. Further, all assets and associated liabilities transferred to MicroPort were classified as assets and liabilities held for sale on our consolidated balance sheet, in accordance with FASB ASC 360.
Revenue recognition. Our revenue isrevenues are primarily generated from sales tothrough two types of customers: healthcare institutionscustomers, hospitals and surgery centers and stocking distributors. Sales to healthcare institutions representdistributors, with the majority of our revenue. Revenuerevenue derived from sales to healthcare institutionshospitals and surgery centers. Our products are sold through a network of employee and independent sales representatives in the United States and by a combination of employee sales representatives, independent sales representatives, and stocking distributors outside the United States. We record revenues from sales to hospitals and surgery centers when they take title to the product, which is generally when the product is surgically implanted in a patient.

During the quarter ended December 27, 2015, following the Wright/Tornier merger, we changed our estimate of uninvoiced revenue. While we have generally recognized revenue at the time that the product was surgically implanted, from a timing perspective, we now recognize revenue at the time the surgery and associated products used are reported, as opposed to previously when we received clerical documentation from the hospital. We accounted for this as a change in estimate and recorded additional revenue of surgical implantation. approximately $3 million in the quarter ended December 27, 2015.
We generally record revenuerevenues from sales to our stocking distributors at the time the product is shipped to the distributor. StockingOur stocking distributors, who sell the products to their customers, take title to the products and assume all risks of ownership at time of shipment. We do not have any arrangements with stocking distributors that allow for retroactive pricing adjustments.ownership. Our stocking distributors are obligated to pay us within specified terms regardless of when, if ever, they sell the products. In certain circumstances, we may accept sales returns fromgeneral, our stocking distributors and in certain situations in which the rightdo not have any rights of return exists,or exchange; however, in limited situations, we estimatehave repurchase agreements with certain stocking distributors. Those certain agreements require us to repurchase a reserve forspecified percentage of the inventory purchased by the distributor within a specified period of time prior to the expiration of the contract. During those specified periods, we defer the applicable percentage of the sales. An insignificant amount of sales related to these types of agreements were deferred and not yet recognized as revenue as of December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015.
We must make estimates of potential future product returns and recognize the reserve as a reduction of revenue.related to current period product sales. We base our estimate for sales returns on historical sales and product return information, including historical experience and trend information. Our reserve for sales returns has historically been immaterial. We charge our customers for shipping and handling and recognize these amounts as part of revenue.

Allowance

In 2011, we entered into a trademark license agreement with KCI Medical Resources, a subsidiary of Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (KCI). In exchange for Doubtful Accounts

$8.5 million, of which $5.5 million was received immediately and $3 million was received in January 2012, this license agreement provides KCI with a non-transferable license to use our trademarks associated with our GRAFTJACKET® line of products in connection with the marketing and distribution of KCI's soft tissue graft containment products used in the wound care field, subject to certain exceptions. License revenue under this agreement is being recognized over 12 years on a straight-line basis.

Allowances for doubtful accounts.We maintain anexperience credit losses on our accounts receivable; and accordingly, we must make estimates related to the ultimate collection of our accounts receivable. Specifically, we analyze our accounts receivable, historical bad debt experience, customer concentrations, customer creditworthiness, and current economic trends when evaluating the adequacy of our allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses in the collection of accounts receivable. We make estimates regarding the future ability of our customers to make required payments based on historical credit experience, delinquency and current and expected future trends. accounts.
The majority of our receivablesaccounts receivable are due from healthcare institutions, many of which are government funded. Accordingly, ourhospitals and surgery centers. Our collection history with this class of customer has been favorable and has resulted in a low level of historical write-offs.with minimal bad debts from these customers. We write off accounts receivable when we determine that the accounts receivable are uncollectible, typically upon customer bankruptcy or the customer’s non-response to continuedrepeated collection efforts.

We believe that the amount included in our allowance for doubtful accounts historically has been ana historically appropriate estimate of the amount of accounts receivable that isare ultimately not collected. While we believe that our allowance for doubtful accounts is adequate, the financial condition of our customers and the geopoliticalgeo-political factors that impact reimbursement under individual countries’ healthcare systems can change rapidly, which maywould necessitate additional allowances in future periods. For example, in 2012, we recorded reserves $2.0 million for certain specific customer accounts in Italy, primarily due to the impact of the ongoing economic challenges and the termination of agreements with certain distributors. Our allowanceallowances for doubtful accounts was $5.1were $4.5 million and $4.8$1.2 million, at December 29, 201325, 2016 and December 30, 2012,27, 2015, respectively.

Excess and Obsolete Inventory

obsolete inventories.We value our inventory at the lower of the actual cost to purchase and/or manufacture the inventory on a first-in, first-out or FIFO,(FIFO) basis or its net realizable value. We regularly review inventory quantities on hand for excess and obsolete inventory (which can include charges for product expirations) and, when circumstances indicate, we incur charges to write down inventories to their net realizable value. Our review of inventory forWe estimate excess and obsolete quantities isinventory based on an analysisboth the current age of historical product sales together withkit inventory as compared to its estimated life cycle and our forecast of futureforecasted product demand and production requirements.requirements for other inventory items for the next 36 months. A significant decrease in demand could result in an increase in the amount of excess inventory quantities on hand. Additionally, our industry is characterized by regular new product developmentsdevelopment that could result in an increase in the amount of obsolete inventory quantities on hand due to cannibalization of existing products. Also, our estimates of future product demand may prove to be inaccurate in which case we may be required to incur charges for excess and obsolete inventory.

Total charges incurred to write down excess and obsolete inventory to net realizable value included in “Cost of sales” were approximately $21.5 million, $14.2 million, and $4.0 million for the years ended December 25, 2016, December 27, 2015, and December 31, 2014, respectively. During the year ended December 25, 2016, we recorded $4.1 million of provisions for excess and obsolete inventory for product rationalization initiatives. Additionally, charges in 2016 are higher than prior years due to the additional inventories subject to reserves following the Wright/Tornier merger. During the quarter ended December 27, 2015, we adjusted our estimate for excess and obsolete inventory which resulted in a charge of $4.1 million.
In the future, if

additional inventorywrite-downs are required, we would recognize additional cost of goods sold at the time of such determination. Regardless of changes in our estimates of future product demand, we do not increase the value of our inventory above its adjusted cost basis. Therefore, although we make every effort to ensure the accuracy of our forecasts of future product


demand, significant unanticipated decreases in demand or technological developments could have a significant impact on the value of our inventory and our reported operating results. Charges incurred for excess
Business combinations, goodwill and obsolete inventory were $8.4 million, $8.2 million and $5.0 million for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Instruments

Instruments are surgical tools used by orthopaedic and general surgeons during joint replacement and other surgical procedures to facilitate the implantation of our products. There are no contractual terms with respect to the usage of our instruments by our customers and we maintain ownership of these instruments, except in situations where we sell instruments to certain stocking distributors. We generally do not charge for the use of our instruments and there are no minimum purchase commitments relating to our products. As our surgical instrumentation is used numerous times over several years, often by many different customers, instruments are recognized as long-lived assets. Instruments and instrument parts that have not been placed in service are carried at cost and are included as instruments in progress within instruments, net of allowances for excess and obsolete instruments, on our consolidated balance sheets. Once placed in service, instruments are carried at cost, less accumulated depreciation. Instrument parts used to maintain the functionality of instrument sets but that do not extend the life of the instrument sets are expensed as they are consumed and recorded as part of selling, general and administrative expense. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method based on average estimated useful lives. Estimated useful lives are determined principally in reference to associated product life cycles, and average five years. As instruments are used as tools to assist surgeons, depreciation of instruments is recognized as a selling, general and administrative expense. Instrument depreciation expense was $13.9 million, $12.4 million and $11.0 million during 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

We review instruments for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. An impairment loss would be recognized when estimated future undiscounted cash flows relating to an asset are less than the asset’s carrying amount. An impairment loss is measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its fair value.

Business Combinations, Goodwill and Long-Lived Assets

We account for acquired businesses using the purchase method of accounting. Under the purchase method, our consolidated financial statements include the financial results of an acquired business starting from the date the acquisition is completed. In addition, the assets acquired, liabilities assumed, and any contingent consideration must be recorded at the date of acquisition at their respective estimated fair values, with any excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair values of the net assets acquired recorded as goodwill. Significant judgment is required in estimating the fair value of contingent consideration and intangible assets and in assigning their respective useful lives. Accordingly, we typically obtain the assistance of third-party valuation specialists for significant acquisitions. The fair value estimates are based on available historical information and on future expectations and assumptions deemed reasonable by management, but are inherently uncertain.

We typically have used a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the fair value of contingent consideration on the date of acquisition. Significant changes in the discount rate used could affect the accuracy of the fair value calculation. Contingent consideration is adjusted based on experience in subsequent periods and the impact of changes related to assumptions are recorded in operating expenses as incurred.

We typically use an income method to estimate the fair value of intangible assets, which is based on forecasts of the expected future cash flows attributable to the respective assets. Significant estimates and assumptions inherent in the valuations reflect a consideration of other marketplace participants and include the amount and timing of future cash flows (including expected growth rates and profitability), the underlying product or technology life cycles, the economic barriers to entry, and the discount rate applied to the cash flows. Unanticipated market or macroeconomic events and circumstances may occur that could affect the accuracy or validity of the estimates and assumptions.

result in a triggering event for which we would test for impairment.

Determining the useful life of an intangible asset also requires judgment. Certain intangibles are expected to have indefinite lives based on their history and our plans to continue to support and build the acquired brands. Other acquired intangible assets (e.g., certain trademarks or brands, customer relationships, patents and technologies) are expected to have finite useful lives. Our assessment as to trademarks and brands that have an indefinite life and those that have a finite life is based on a number of factors including competitive environment, market share, trademark and/or brand history, underlying product life cycles, operating plans, and the macroeconomic environment of the countries in which the trademarks or brands are sold. Our estimates of the useful lives of finite-lived intangibles are primarily based on these same factors. All of our acquired technology and customer-related intangibles are expected to have finite useful lives.

We have

As of December 25, 2016, we had approximately $251.5$851.0 million of goodwill recorded as a result of theour acquisition of businesses.businesses, including most recently the Wright/Tornier merger. Goodwill is tested for impairment annually, or more frequently if changes in circumstances or the occurrence of events suggest that impairment exists. Based on our single business approach todecision-making, planningThe annual evaluation of goodwill impairment may require the use of estimates and resource allocation, we have determined that we have one reporting unit for purposes of evaluating goodwill for impairment. We use widely accepted valuation techniquesassumptions to determine the fair value of our reporting unit used in our annual goodwill impairment analysis. Our valuation is primarily based on a qualitative assessment and, if necessary, a quantitative assessments regardingunits using projections of future cash flows. Unless circumstances otherwise dictate, the fair value of the reporting unit relative to the carrying value. We also use a market approach to evaluate the reasonableness of the income approach. We performed our annual impairment test is performed on October 1 each year.
During the first day of the fourth quarter of 2013 and2016, we had a change in segment reporting that required an interim review of potential goodwill impairment which we performed as of February 2016. Upon completion of this analysis, we determined that the fair value of our reporting unit significantlyunits, determined primarily by an income approach using projected cash flows, exceeded itstheir carrying valuevalues; and therefore, no goodwill was impaired.
We also performed a qualitative assessment of goodwill for impairment chargeas of October 1, 2016 for our reporting units and determined that it is not more likely than not that the respective carrying values of our reporting units exceeded their fair value, indicating that goodwill was necessary.

not impaired.

Our business is capital intensive, particularly as it relates to surgical instrumentation. We depreciate our property, plant and equipment and instruments and amortize our intangible assets based upon our estimate of the respective asset’s useful life. Our estimate of the useful life of an asset requires us to make judgments about future events, such as product life cycles, new product development, product cannibalization, and technological obsolescence, as well as other competitive factors beyond our control. We account for the impairment of finite, long-lived assets in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standard Codification (ASC)the FASB ASC Section 360, Property, Plant and Equipment (FASB ASC 360) and ASC 350, General Intangibles Other than Goodwill.Equipment. Accordingly, when indicators of impairment exist, we evaluate impairments of our property, plant and equipment instruments, and intangibles based upon an analysis of estimated undiscounted future cash flows. If we determine that a change is required in the useful life of an asset, future depreciation and amortization is adjusted accordingly. Alternatively, if we determine that an asset has been impaired, an adjustment would be charged to earningsincome based on the asset’s fair market value, or discounted cash flows if the fair market value is not readily determinable.

Accountingdeterminable, reducing income in that period.

Valuation of in-process research and development.The estimated fair value attributed to IPRD represents an estimate of the fair value of purchased in-process technology for Income Taxes

research programs that have not reached technological feasibility and have no alternative future use. Only those research programs that had advanced to a stage of development where management believed reasonable net future cash flow forecasts could be prepared and a reasonable possibility of technical success existed were included in the estimated fair value.

IPRD is recorded as an indefinite-lived intangible asset until completion or abandonment of the associated research and development projects. Accordingly, no amortization expense is reflected in the results of operations. If a project is completed, the carrying value

of the related intangible asset will be amortized over the remaining estimated life of the asset beginning with the period in which the project is completed. If a project becomes impaired or is abandoned, the carrying value of the related intangible asset will be written down to its fair value and an impairment charge will be taken in the period the impairment occurs. These intangible assets are tested for impairment on an annual basis, or earlier if impairment indicators are present.
Product liability claims and related insurance recoveries and other litigation. Periodically, claims arise involving the use of our products. We make provisions for claims specifically identified for which we believe the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and an estimate of the amount of loss has been developed. As additional information becomes available, we reassess the estimated liability related to our pending claims and make revisions as necessary.
The product liability claims described in this section relate primarily to Wright Medical Technology, Inc., an indirect subsidiary of Wright Medical Group N.V., and are not necessarily applicable to Wright Medical Group N.V. or other affiliated entities. Maintaining separate legal entities within our corporate structure is intended to ring-fence liabilities.  We believe our ring-fenced structure should preclude corporate veil-piercing efforts against entities whose assets are not associated with particular claims.  
We have received claims for personal injury against us associated with fractures of our PROFEMUR® long titanium modular neck product (PROFEMUR® Claims). As of December 25, 2016, there were 26 pending U.S. lawsuits and 48 pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims. The overall fracture rate for the product is low and the fractures appear, at least in part, to relate to patient demographics. Beginning in 2009, we began offering a cobalt-chrome version of our PROFEMUR® modular neck, which has greater strength characteristics than the alternative titanium version. Historically, we have reflected our liability for these claims as part of our standard product liability accruals on a case-by-case basis. However, during the quarter ended September 30, 2011, as a result of an increase in the number and monetary amount of these claims, management estimated our liability to patients in North America who have previously required a revision following a fracture of a PROFEMUR® long titanium modular neck, or who may require a revision in the future. Management has estimated that this aggregate liability ranges from approximately $21.9 million to $25.9 million. Any claims associated with this product outside of North America, or for any other products, will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis.
Due to the uncertainty within our aggregate range of loss resulting from the estimation of the number of claims and related monetary payments, we have recorded a liability of $21.9 million, which represents the low-end of our estimated aggregate range of loss. We have classified $14.2 million of this liability as current in “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities,” as we expect to pay such claims within the next twelve months, and $7.7 million as non-current in “Other liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet. We expect to pay the majority of these claims within the next three years.
We are aware that MicroPort has recalled certain sizes of its cobalt chrome modular neck products as a result of alleged fractures. As of December 25, 2016, there were three pending U.S. lawsuits and five pending non-U.S. lawsuits against us alleging personal injury resulting from the fracture of a cobalt chrome modular neck. These claims will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis.
We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a claims-made basis. During the quarter ended March 31, 2013, we received a customary reservation of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier asserting that present and future claims related to fractures of our PROFEMUR®titanium modular neck hip products and which allege certain types of injury (Titanium Modular Neck Claims) would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position would be to place Titanium Modular Neck Claims into a single prior policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. Management agrees with the assertion that the Titanium Modular Neck Claims should be treated as a single occurrence, but notified the carrier that it disputed the carrier's selection of available policy years. During the second quarter of 2013, we received confirmation from the primary carrier confirming their agreement with our policy year determination. Based on our insurer's treatment of Titanium Modular Neck Claims as a single occurrence, we increased our estimate of the total probable insurance recovery related to Titanium Modular Neck Claims by $19.4 million, and recognized such additional recovery as a reduction to our selling, general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2013, within results of discontinued operations. In the quarter ended June 30, 2013, we received payment from the primary insurance carrier of $5 million. In the quarter ended September 30, 2013, we received payment of $10 million from the next insurance carrier in the tower. We have requested, but not yet received, payment of the remaining $25 million from the third insurance carrier in the tower for that policy period. The policies with the second and third carrier in this tower are “follow form” policies and management believes the third carrier should follow the coverage position taken by the primary and secondary carriers. On September 29, 2015, that third carrier asserted that the terms and conditions identified in its reservation of rights will preclude coverage for the Titanium Modular Neck Claims. We strongly dispute the carrier's position and, in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of the policy, have initiated an arbitration proceeding in London, England seeking payment of these funds. Pursuant to applicable accounting standards, we reduced our insurance receivable balance for this claim to $0, and recorded a $25 million charge within "Net loss from discontinued operations" during the year ended December 27, 2015. The arbitration proceeding is ongoing.

Claims for personal injury have also been made against us associated with our metal-on-metal hip products (primarily our CONSERVE® product line). The pre-trial management of certain of these claims has been consolidated in the federal court system, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under multi-district litigation (MDL) and certain other claims by the Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP) in state court in Los Angeles County, California (collectively the Consolidated Metal-on-Metal Claims).
As of December 25, 2016, there were approximately 1,200 lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an additional 30 cases pending in various state courts. As of that date, we have also entered into approximately 950 so called "tolling agreements" with potential claimants who have not yet filed suit. Based on presently available information, we believe at least 350 of these lawsuits allege claims involving bilateral implants. As of December 25, 2016, there were also approximately 50 non-U.S. lawsuits pending. We believe we have data that supports the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip products. While continuing to dispute liability, we have participated in court supervised non-binding mediation in the MDL and expect to begin similar mediation in the JCCP.
Every metal-on-metal hip case involves fundamental issues of law, science and medicine that often are uncertain, that continue to evolve, and which present contested facts and issues that can differ significantly from case to case. Such contested facts and issues include medical causation, individual patient characteristics, surgery specific factors, statutes of limitation, and the existence of actual, provable injury.
The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015, we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages awarded. On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order reducing the punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1 million, but otherwise denied our motion. On May 4, 2016, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments on January 26, 2017 and we are awaiting a decision of the Court. In light of the trial judge’s April 5th order, we recorded an accrual for this verdict in the amount of $2.1 million within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities,” and a $2.1 million receivable associated with the probable recovery from product liability insurance is reflected within “Other current assets.”
The first bellwether trial in the JCCP, which was scheduled to commence on October 31, 2016, and subsequently rescheduled to January 9, 2017, was settled for an immaterial amount.
The first state court metal-on-metal hip trial not part of the MDL or JCCP commenced on October 24, 2016, in St. Louis, Missouri. On November 3, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in our favor. The plaintiff has appealed.
On November 1, 2016, WMT entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the MDL and JCCP. Under the terms of the MSA, the parties agreed to settle 1,292 specifically identified claims associated with CONSERVE®, DYNASTY® and LINEAGE® products that meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or subject to court-approved tolling agreements in the MDL or JCCP, for a settlement amount of $240 million.
The $240 million settlement amount is a maximum settlement based on the pool of 1,292 specific, existing claims comprised of an identified mix of CONSERVE®, DYNASTY® and LINEAGE® products (Initial Settlement Pool), with a value assigned to each product type, resulting in a total settlement of $240 million for the 1,292 claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. The actual settlement may be less, depending on several factors including the mix of products and claimants in the final settlement pool (Final Settlement Pool) and the number of claimants electing to “opt-out” of the settlement.
Actual settlements paid to individual claimants will be determined under the claims administration procedures contained in the MSA and may be more or less than the amounts used to calculate the $240 million settlement for the 1,292 claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. However in no event will variations in actual settlement amounts payable to individual claimants affect WMT’s maximum settlement obligation of $240 million or the manner in which it may be reduced due to opt outs, final product mix, or elimination of ineligible claims.
If it is determined a claim in the Initial Settlement Pool is ineligible due to failure to meet the eligibility criteria of the MSA, such claim will be removed and, where possible, replaced with a new eligible claim involving the same product, with the goal of having the number and mix of claims in the Final Settlement Pool (before opt-outs) equal, as nearly as possible, the number and mix of claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. Additionally, if any DYNASTY® or LINEAGE® claims in the Final Settlement Pool are determined to have been misidentified as CONSERVE® claims, or vice versa, the total settlement amount will be adjusted based on the value for each product type (not to exceed $240 million).
The MSA contains specific eligibility requirements and establishes procedures for proof and administration of claims, negotiation and execution of individual settlement agreements, determination of the final total settlement amount, and funding of individual settlement amounts by WMT. Eligibility requirements include, without limitation, that the claimant has a claim pending or tolled

in the MDL or JCCP, that the claimant has undergone a revision surgery within eight years of the original implantation surgery, and that the claim has not been identified by WMT as having possible statute of limitation issues. Claimants who have had bilateral revision surgeries will be counted as two claims but only to the extent both claims separately satisfy all eligibility criteria.
The MSA includes a 95% opt-in requirement, meaning the MSA may be terminated by WMT prior to any settlement disbursement if claimants holding greater than 5% of eligible claims in the Final Settlement Pool elect to “opt-out” of the settlement. WMT, in its sole discretion, may waive this 95% opt-in requirement. No funding of any individual plaintiff settlement will occur until the 95% opt-in requirement has been satisfied or waived.
WMT has been notified pursuant to the MSA that greater than 95% of eligible claimants timely elected to opt-in to the MSA settlement prior to the opt-in deadline. Accordingly, the 95% minimum opt-in rate appears to have been satisfied, subject to WMT's audit rights under the MSA.
WMT has escrowed $150 million to secure its obligations under the MSA. As additional security, Wright Medical Group N.V., the indirect parent company of WMT, agreed to guaranty WMT’s obligations under the MSA.
The MSA was entered into solely as a compromise of the disputed claims being settled and is not evidence that any claim has merit nor is it an admission of wrongdoing or liability by WMT. WMT will continue to vigorously defend metal-on-metal hip claims not settled pursuant to the MSA. As of December 25, 2016, we estimate there were approximately 630 outstanding metal-on-metal hip revision claims that would not be included in the MSA settlement, including approximately 200 claims with an implant duration of more than eight years, approximately 300 claims subject to possible statute of limitations preclusion, approximately 30 claims pending in U.S courts other than the MDL and JCCP, approximately 50 claims pending in non-U.S. courts, and approximately 50 claims that would be eligible for inclusion in the settlement but for the participation limitations contained in the MSA. We also estimate that there were approximately 650 outstanding metal-on-metal hip non-revision claims as of December 25, 2016. These non-revision cases are excluded from the MSA.
As of December 25, 2016, our accrual for metal-on-metal claims totaled $256.6 million, of which $242.7 million is included in our condensed consolidated balance sheet within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities” and $13.9 million is included within “Other liabilities.”  Our effective tax rateaccrual is based on income(i) case by tax jurisdiction, statutory ratescase accruals for specific cases where facts and tax-saving initiativescircumstances warrant, including the $2.1 million accrual associated with the MDL bellwether verdict, and (ii) the implied settlement values for eligible claims under the MSA (assuming, in the absence of opt-in data, a 100% opt-in rate). We are unable to reasonably estimate the high-end of a possible range of loss for claims which may in the future elect to opt-out of the MSA settlement. Claims we can confirm would meet MSA eligibility criteria but are excluded from settlement due to the $240 million maximum settlement cap, or because they are state cases not part of the MDL or JCCP, have been accrued as though included in the settlement. Due to the general uncertainties surrounding all metal-on metal claims as noted above, as well as insufficient information about individual claims, we are presently unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss for revision claims that (i) do not meet MSA eligibility criteria, or (ii) are future claims; hence we have not accrued for these claims at the present time. However, we believe the high-end of a possible range of loss for existing revision claims that do not meet MSA eligibility criteria will not, on an average per case basis, exceed the average per case accrual we have taken for revision claims we can confirm do meet MSA eligibility criteria. Future claims will be evaluated for accrual on a case by case basis using the accrual methodologies described above (which could change if future facts and circumstances warrant).
We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a claims-made basis. During the quarter ended September 30, 2012, we received a customary reservation of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier asserting that certain present and future claims which allege certain types of injury related to our CONSERVE® metal-on-metal hip products (CONSERVE® Claims) would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position would be to place CONSERVE® Claims into a single prior policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. Management agrees that there is insurance coverage for the CONSERVE® Claims, but has notified the carrier that it disputes the carrier's characterization of the CONSERVE® Claims as a single occurrence.
In June 2014, St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Travelers), which was an excess carrier in our coverage towers across multiple policy years, filed a declaratory judgment action in Tennessee state court naming us and certain of our other insurance carriers as defendants and asking the court to rule on the rights and responsibilities of the parties with regard to the CONSERVE® Claims. Among other things, Travelers appeared to dispute our contention that the CONSERVE® Claims arise out of more than a single occurrence thereby triggering multiple policy periods of coverage.  Travelers further sought a determination as to the applicable policy period triggered by the alleged single occurrence.  We filed a separate lawsuit in state court in California for declaratory judgment against certain carriers and breach of contract against the primary carrier, and moved to dismiss or stay the Tennessee action on a number of grounds, including that California is the most appropriate jurisdiction. During the third quarter of 2014, the California Court granted Travelers' motion to stay our California action. On April 29, 2016, we filed a dispositive motion seeking partial judgment in our favor in the Tennessee action. That motion is pending, and will be decided after the parties complete discovery regarding certain issues relating to the pending motion. On June 10, 2016, Travelers withdrew its motion for

summary judgment in the Tennessee action. One of the other insurance companies in the Tennessee action has stated that it will re-file a similar motion in the future.
On October 28, 2016, WMT and Wright Medical Group, Inc. (Wright Entities), entered into a Settlement Agreement, Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement and Policy Buyback Agreement (Insurance Settlement Agreement) with a subgroup of three insurance carriers, namely Columbia Casualty Company, Travelers and AXIS Surplus Lines Insurance Company (collectively, the Three Settling Insurers), pursuant to which the Three Settling Insurers agreed to pay WMT an aggregate of $60 million (in addition to $10 million previously paid by Columbia) in a lump sum on or before the 30th business day after execution of the Insurance Settlement Agreement. This amount is in full satisfaction of all potential liability of the Three Settling Insurers relating to metal-on-metal hip and similar metal ion release claims, including but not limited to all claims in the MDL and the JCCP, and all claims asserted by WMT against the Three Settling Insurers in the Tennessee action described above.
On December 13, 2016, we filed a motion in the Tennessee action described above to include allegations of bad faith against the primary insurance carrier.  The motion was subsequently amended on February 8, 2017 to add similar bad faith claims against the remaining excess carriers.  That motion is pending.
As part of the settlement, the Three Settling Insurers bought back from WMT their policies in the five policy years beginning with the August 15, 2007- August 15, 2008 policy year (Repurchased Policy Years). Consequently, the Wright Entities have no further coverage from the Three Settling Insurers for any present or future claims falling in the Repurchased Policy Years, or any other period in which a released claim is asserted. Additionally, the Insurance Settlement Agreement contains a so-called most favored nation provision which could require us to refund a pro rata portion of the settlement amount if we voluntarily enter into a settlement with the remaining carriers in the Repurchased Policy Years on certain terms more favorable than analogous terms in the Insurance Settlement Agreement. The Tennessee action will continue as to the remaining defendant insurers other than the Three Settling Insurers. The amount due to the Wright Entities under the Insurance Settlement Agreement was paid in the fourth quarter of 2016.
Management has recorded an insurance receivable of $8.7 million for the probable recovery of spending from the remaining carriers (other than the Three Settling Carriers) in excess of our retention for a single occurrence. As of December 25, 2016 we have received $71.7 million of insurance proceeds, and our insurance carriers have paid a total of $4.6 million directly to claimants in connection with various settlements, which represents amounts undisputed by the carriers. Our acceptance of these proceeds was not a waiver of any other claim we may have against the insurance carriers. However, the amount we ultimately receive will depend on the outcome of our dispute with the remaining carriers (other than the Three Settling Carriers) concerning the number of policy years available. We believe our contracts with the insurance carriers are enforceable for these claims; and, therefore, we believe it is probable we will receive additional recoveries from the remaining carriers. Settlement discussions with the remaining insurance carriers continue.
Given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in these matters in excess of the amounts included in our accrual for contingencies could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. Future revisions to our estimates of these provisions could materially impact our results of operations and financial position. We use the best information available to determine the level of accrued product liabilities, and believe our accruals are adequate.
In June 2015, a jury returned a $4.4 million verdict against us in a case involving a fractured hip implant stem sold prior to the various jurisdictionsMicroPort closing.  This was a one-of-a-kind case unrelated to the modular neck fracture cases we have been reporting. There are no other cases pending related to this component, nor are we aware of other instances where this component has fractured. In September 2015, the trial judge reduced the jury verdict to $1.025 million and indicated that if the plaintiff did not accept the reduced award he would schedule a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff elected not to accept the reduced damage award, and both parties have appealed. The Court has not set a date for a new trial on the issue of damages and we do not expect it will do so until the appeals are adjudicated. We will maintain our current $4.4 million accrual as a probable liability until the matter is resolved. The $4.4 million probable liability associated with this matter is reflected within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities,” and a $4 million receivable associated with the probable recovery from product liability insurance is reflected within “Other current assets.”
Accounting for income taxes. We account for income taxes in accordance with provisions which we operate. Significant judgment is required in determining our effective tax rateset forth an asset and evaluating our tax positions. This process includes assessing temporary differences resulting from differingliability approach that requires the recognition of items for income tax and financial reporting purposes. These differences result in deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities which are included within our consolidated balance sheet.for the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and the tax bases of assets and liabilities. Realization of deferred tax assets in each taxable jurisdiction is dependent on our ability to generate future taxable income sufficient to realize the benefits. Management evaluates deferred tax assets on an ongoing basis and provides valuation allowances to reduce net deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized.

Our valuation allowance balances totaled $40.4$479.4 million and $30.0$336.1 million as of December 29, 201325, 2016 and December 30, 2012,27, 2015, respectively, due to uncertainties related to our ability to realize, before expiration, somecertain of our deferred tax assets for both U.S. and foreign income tax purposes. These deferred tax assets primarily consist of the carryforward of certain tax basis net operating losses and general business tax credits.

We recognize tax benefits when they are more likely than not to be realized.


As a multinational corporation, we are subject to taxation in many jurisdictions and the calculation of our tax liabilities for uncertain tax positions involves dealing with uncertainties in the application of complex tax laws and regulations in various taxing jurisdictions. In accordance with ASC 740 Income Taxes, we recognize the tax effects of an income tax position only if they are “more-likely-than-not” to be sustained based solely on the technical merits as of the reporting date. If we ultimately determine that the payment of these liabilities will be unnecessary, we will reverse the liability and recognize a tax benefit in the period in which we determine the liability no longer applies. Conversely, we record additional tax charges in a period in which we determine that a recorded tax liability is less than we expect the ultimate assessment to be. Our liability for unrecognized tax benefits totaled $3.1$8.1 million and $2.6$9.9 million as of December 29, 201325, 2016 and December 30, 2012,27, 2015, respectively.

Share-BasedShare-based compensation Compensation

For purposes. We calculate the grant date fair value of calculatingshare-based compensation, we estimaterestricted stock units as the closing sales price on the trading day of the grant date. We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine the fair value of stock options using aBlack-Scholes option pricing model.and employee stock purchase plan shares. The determination of the fair value of these share-based payment awards utilizing thisBlack-Scholeson the date of grant using an option-pricing model is affected by our ordinary sharestock price andas well as assumptions regarding a number of assumptions, including expected volatility,complex and subjective variables, which include the expected life of the award, the expected stock price volatility over the expected life of the awards, expected dividend yield, and risk-free interest rate and expected dividends. The estimated fair value ofrate.

share-based awards exchanged for employee and non-employee director services are expensed over the requisite service period. Option awards issued to non-employees (excluding non-employee directors) are recorded at their fair value as determined in accordance with authoritative guidance, are periodically revalued as the options vest and are recognized as expense over the related service period.

We currently do not have information available which is indicative of future exercise and post-vesting behavior to estimate the expected term. As a result, we adoptedlife of options evaluating the historical activity as required by FASB ASC Topic 718, Compensation — Stock Compensation. Prior to the Wright/Tornier merger, the expected life of options was estimated based on historical option exercise and employee termination data. Post merger, the expected life of options was estimated based on the simplified method due to a lack of estimatingcomparable, historical option exercise, and employee termination data for the combined company. The expected term of a stock option, as permitted by ASC 718. Under this method, the expected term is presumed to be the mid-point between the vesting date and the contractual end of the term of our share-based awards. As a non-public entity prior to February 2011, historic

price volatility assumption was not available for our ordinary shares. As a result, we estimated volatility based on a peer group of companies that we believe collectively provides a reasonable basis for estimating volatility. We intend to continue to consistently use the same group of publicly traded peer companies to determine volatility in the future until sufficient information regardingupon historical volatility of our ordinary share price becomes available orshares for both legacy Wright and legacy Tornier prior to October 1, 2015 for and the selected companies are no longer suitable for this purpose.total combined company after the Wright/Tornier merger. The risk-free interest rate is based on the implied yield available ondetermined using U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issuesrates where the term is consistent with a remaining term approximately equal to the expected life of ourthe stock options. Expected dividend yield is not considered as we have never paid dividends and have no plans of doing so in the future.

The estimated pre-vesting forfeiture rateBlack-Scholes option-pricing model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options that have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable, characteristics not present in our option grants and employee stock purchase plan shares. Existing valuation models, including the Black-Scholes and lattice binomial models, may not provide reliable measures of the fair values of our share-based compensation. Consequently, there is based ona risk that our historical experience together with estimates of future employee turnover. We do not expectthe fair values of our share-based compensation awards on the grant dates may bear little resemblance to declare cash dividendsthe actual values realized upon the exercise, expiration, early termination, or forfeiture of those share-based payments in the foreseeable future. ForCertain share-based payments, such as employee stock options, may expire worthless or otherwise result in zero intrinsic value as compared to the fair values originally estimated on the grant date and reported in our financial statements. Alternatively, value may be realized from these instruments that is significantly higher than the fair values originally estimated on the grant date and reported in our financial statements. There is not currently a summarymarket-based mechanism or other practical application to verify the reliability and accuracy of the estimates stemming from these valuation models.
We are required to estimate forfeitures at the time of grant and revise those estimates in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. We use historical data to estimate pre-vesting forfeitures and record share-based compensation expense relatedonly for those awards that are expected to vest. All share-based awards see Note 16 of our consolidated financial statements.

are amortized on a straight-line basis over their respective requisite service periods, which are generally the vesting periods.

If factors change and we employ different assumptions for estimating share-based compensation expense in future periods, such share-based compensation expense in future periods may differ significantly from what we have recorded in the past. If therecurrent period and could materially affect our operating income, net income, and net income per share. A change in assumptions may also result in a lack of comparability with other companies that use different models, methods, and assumptions.
See Note 14 to our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for further information regarding our share-based compensation.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
Information regarding recent accounting pronouncements is a difference between the assumptions usedincluded in determiningNote 2share-based compensation expense and the actual factors which become known over time, specifically with respect to anticipated forfeitures, we may change the input factors used in determiningshare-based compensation costs for future grants. These changes, if any, may materially impact our results of operations in the period such changes are made. We expect to continue to grant stock options and other share-based awards in the future, and to the extent that we do, our actualshare-based compensation expense recognizedconsolidated financial statements in future periods will likely increase.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In June 2013, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2013-11,Income Taxes (ASC Topic 740), Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists. The ASU requires entities to present unrecognized tax benefits as a decrease in a net operating loss, similar to tax loss or tax credit carryforward if certain criteria are met. The standard clarifies presentation requirements for unrecognized tax benefits but will not alter the way in which entities assess deferred tax assets for realizability. The guidance is effective for the fiscal year,Item 8. Financial Statements and interim periods within that fiscal year, beginning after December 15, 2013. We will adopt this guidance beginning in the first quarter of 2014. The impact of adoption is not expected to be material.

In March 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-05,Foreign Currency Matters (ASC Topic 830), Parent’s Accounting for the Cumulative Adjustment upon Derecognition of Certain Subsidiaries or Groups of Assets within a Foreign Entity or of an Investment in a Foreign Entity. The ASU requires entities to release cumulative translation adjustments to earnings when an entity ceases to have a controlling financial interest in a subsidiary or group of assets within a consolidated foreign entity and the sale or transfer results in the complete or substantially complete liquidation of the foreign entity. The ASU is effective for the fiscal year, and interim periods within that fiscal year, beginning after December 15, 2013 and is to be applied prospectively. We will adopt this guidance in the first quarter of 2014 and will affect the accounting for any future liquidation of foreign subsidiaries.

In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-04,Liabilities (ASC Topic 405), Obligations Resulting from Joint and Several Liability Arrangements for Which the Total Amount of the Obligation is Fixed at the Reporting Date.The ASU requires an entity that is jointly and severally liable to measure the obligation as the sum of the amount the entity has agreed with co-obligors to pay and any additional amount it expects to pay on behalf of one or more co-obligors. The amendment is effective for the fiscal year, and interim periods with that fiscal year, beginning after December 15, 2013 and should be applied retrospectively. We will adopt this guidance in the first quarter of 2014. The impact of adoption is expected to be immaterial.

Supplementary Data”.

ITEM

Item 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

We are exposed to various market risks, which may result in potential losses arising from adverse changes in market ratesQuantitative and prices, such as interest rates and foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations. We do not enter into derivatives or other financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes. We believe we are not exposed to a material market risk with respect to our invested cash and cash equivalents.

Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Interest Rate Risk

Borrowings under our revolving credit facility and U.S. dollar denominated term loanABL Facility bear interest at variable rates. The interest rate margin applicable to borrowings under the ABL Facility is, at the option of the Borrowers, equal to either (a) 3.25% for base rate loans or (b) 4.25% for LIBOR rate loans, subject to a 0.75% LIBOR floor. As of December 29, 2013,25, 2016, we had no$30.0 million of borrowings under our revolving credit facility and $60.9 million in borrowings under our U.S. dollar denominated term loan and other debt.ABL Facility. Based upon this debt level, and the LIBOR floor on our interest rate, a 100 basis point increase in the annual interest rate on such borrowings would have an immaterial impact on our interest expense on an annual basis.

At

Our exposure to interest rate risk arises principally from the interest rates associated with our option, borrowings underinvested cash balances. On December 25, 2016, we had invested cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash of approximately $412.3 million. We believe that a 10 basis point change in interest rates is reasonably possible in the near term. Based on our revolving credit facilitycurrent level of investment, an increase or decrease of 10 basis points in interest rates would have an annual impact of approximately $412,000 to our interest income.
As of December 25, 2016, we had outstanding $2.0 million, $587.5 million, and $395 million principal amount of our U.S. dollar denominated term loan facility2017, 2020, and 2021 Notes, respectively. We carry these instruments at face value less unamortized discount on our consolidated balance sheets. Since these instruments bear interest at (a)a fixed rate, we have no financial statement risk associated with changes in interest rates. However, the alternate base rate (if denominated in U.S. dollars), equalfair value of these instruments fluctuates when interest rates change, and when the market price of our ordinary shares fluctuates. We do not carry the 2017, 2020, and 2021 Notes at fair value, but present the fair value of the principal amount of our 2017, 2020, and 2021 Notes for disclosure purposes.
Equity Price Risk
The 2017 Notes include conversion and settlement provisions that are based on the price of our ordinary shares and prior to the greatestWright/Tornier merger, WMG common stock, at conversion or at maturity of (i) the prime ratenotes. On February 13, 2015, WMG issued $632.5 million of the 2020 Notes, which generated net proceeds of approximately $613 million. Approximately $292 million of the net proceeds from the offering were used to repurchase approximately $240 million aggregate principal amount of the 2017 Notes in effect on such day, (ii)privately negotiated transactions. In addition, all of the federal funds rate in effect on such day plus 1/22017 Notes Hedges were settled and all of 1%,the warrants associated with the 2017 Notes were repurchased, generating net proceeds of approximately $10 million. On May 20, 2016, we issued $395 million aggregate principal amount of the 2021 Notes. Concurrently with the issuance and (iii)sale of the adjusted LIBO rate plus 1%, plus in2021 Notes, certain holders of $54.4 million aggregate principal amount of the case of each of (i)-(iii) above, an applicable rate of 2.00% or 2.25% (depending on our total net leverage ratio as defined in our credit agreement), or (b) the applicable adjusted LIBO rate2017 Notes exchanged their 2017 Notes for the relevant interest period plus an applicable rate2021 Notes. Approximately $3.7 million of 3.00% or 3.25% (depending onthe net proceeds from the 2021 Notes offering were subsequently used to repurchase approximately $3.6 million aggregate principal amount of the 2017 Notes in privately negotiated transactions. As of December 25, 2016, we had approximately $2.0 million in outstanding debt under the 2017 Notes. The following table shows the amount of cash that we would be required to provide holders of the 2017 Notes upon maturity assuming various closing prices of our total net leverage ratio), plusordinary shares at the mandatory cost (as defined indate of maturity:
Share price Cash payment in excess of principal (in thousands)
$27.98(10% greater than conversion price)$203
$30.53(20% greater than conversion price)$405
$33.07(30% greater than conversion price)$608
$35.62(40% greater than conversion price)$811
$38.16(50% greater than conversion price)$1,013
The fair value of our credit agreement) if such loan2017 Notes Conversion Derivative is made indirectly impacted by the price of our ordinary shares and prior to the Wright/Tornier merger, WMG common stock. The following table presents the fair values of our 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative as a currency other than U.S. dollars or fromresult of a lending office in the United Kingdom or a participating member state (as defined in our credit agreement).

At December 29, 2013 our cashhypothetical 10% increase and cash equivalents were $56.8 million. Based on our annualized average interest rate, a 10% decrease in the annual interest rateprice of our ordinary shares. We believe that a 10% change in our share price is reasonably possible in the near term:

(in thousands)   
 Fair value of security given a 10% decrease in share priceFair value of security as of December 25, 2016Fair value of security given a 10% increase in share price
2017 Notes Conversion Derivative (Liability)$83$164$277
The 2020 Notes includes conversion and settlement provisions that are based on such balancesthe price of our ordinary shares at conversion or at maturity of the notes. In addition, the hedges and warrants associated with these convertible notes also include settlement provisions that are based on the price of our ordinary shares. The amount of cash we may be required to pay, or the number of shares we may be required to provide to note holders at conversion or maturity of these notes, is determined by the price of our ordinary shares. The amount of cash that we may receive from hedge counterparties in connection with the related hedges and the

number of shares that we may be required to provide warrant counterparties in connection with the related warrants are also determined by the price of our ordinary shares.
Upon the expiration of our warrants issued in connection with the 2020 Notes, we will issue ordinary shares to the purchasers of the warrants to the extent the price of our ordinary shares exceeds the warrant strike price of $40.00 at that time. On November 24, 2015, Wright Medical Group N.V. assumed WMG's obligations pursuant to the warrants, and the strike price of the warrants was adjusted to $38.8010 per ordinary share. The following table shows the number of shares that we would issue to warrant counterparties at expiration of the warrants assuming various closing prices of our ordinary shares on the date of warrant expiration:
Share price Shares (in thousands)
$42.68(10% greater than strike price)1,784
$46.56(20% greater than strike price)3,270
$50.44(30% greater than strike price)4,528
$54.32(40% greater than strike price)5,606
$58.20(50% greater than strike price)6,540
The fair value of the 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative and the 2020 Notes Hedge is directly impacted by the price of our ordinary shares. We entered into the 2020 Notes Hedges in connection with the issuance of the 2020 Notes with the option counterparties. The 2020 Notes Hedges, which are cash-settled, are intended to reduce our exposure to potential cash payments that we are required to make upon conversion of the 2020 Notes in excess of the principal amount of converted notes if our ordinary share price exceeds the conversion price. The following table presents the fair values of the 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative and 2020 Notes Hedge as a result of a hypothetical 10% increase and decrease in an immaterial impactthe price of our ordinary shares. We believe that a 10% change in our share price is reasonably possible in the near term:
(in thousands)   
 Fair value of security given a 10% decrease in share priceFair value of security as of December 25, 2016Fair value of security given a 10% increase in share price
2020 Notes Hedges (Asset)$56,608$77,232$100,727
2020 Notes Conversion Derivative (Liability)$55,516$77,758$103,372
The 2021 Notes include conversion and settlement provisions that are based on the price of our interest incomeordinary shares at conversion or at maturity of the notes. In addition, the hedges and warrants associated with these convertible notes also include settlement provisions that are based on an annual basis.

the price of our ordinary shares. The amount of cash we may be required to pay, or the number of shares we may be required to provide to note holders at conversion or maturity of these notes, is determined by the price of our ordinary shares. The amount of cash that we may receive from hedge counterparties in connection with the related hedges and the number of shares that we may be required to provide warrant counterparties in connection with the related warrants are also determined by the price of our ordinary shares.

Upon the expiration of our warrants issued in connection with the 2021 Notes, we will issue ordinary shares to the purchasers of the warrants to the extent the price of our ordinary shares exceeds the warrant strike price of $30.00 at that time. The following table shows the number of shares that we would issue to warrant counterparties at expiration of the warrants assuming various closing prices of our ordinary shares on the date of warrant expiration:
Share price Shares (in thousands)
$33.00(10% greater than strike price)1,681
$36.00(20% greater than strike price)3,082
$39.00(30% greater than strike price)4,268
$42.00(40% greater than strike price)5,284
$45.00(50% greater than strike price)6,164
The fair value of the 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative and the 2021 Notes Hedge is directly impacted by the price of our ordinary shares. We entered into the 2021 Notes Hedges in connection with the issuance of the 2021 Notes with the option counterparties. The 2021 Notes Hedges, which are cash-settled, are intended to reduce our exposure to potential cash payments that we are required to make upon conversion of the 2021 Notes in excess of the principal amount of converted notes if our ordinary share price exceeds the conversion price. The following table presents the fair values of the 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative and 2021 Notes Hedge as a result of a hypothetical 10% increase and decrease in the price of our ordinary shares. We believe that a 10% change in our share price is reasonably possible in the near term:

(in thousands)   
 Fair value of security given a 10% decrease in share priceFair value of security as of December 25, 2016Fair value of security given a 10% increase in share price
2021 Notes Hedges (Asset)$129,202$159,095$190,663
2021 Notes Conversion Derivative (Liability)$127,313$161,601$197,892
Foreign Currency Exchange Rate Risk

Fluctuations

Fluctuations in the rate of exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies could adversely affect our financial results. In 2013 and 2012, approximately 41% and 44%, respectively,Approximately 24% of our revenuesnet sales from continuing operations were denominated in foreign currencies respectively. Weduring the year ended December 25, 2016 and we expect that foreign currencies will continue to represent a similarly significant percentage of our revenuesnet sales in the future. Operating expensesCost of sales related to these revenuessales are primarily denominated in U.S. dollars; however, operating costs related to these sales are largely denominated in the same respective currency,currencies, thereby partially limiting our transaction risk exposure, to some extent. However, for revenuesexposure. For sales not denominated in U.S. dollars, if there is an increase in the rate at which a foreign currency is exchanged for U.S. dollars it will require more of the foreign currency to equal a specified amount of U.S. dollars than before the rate increase. In such cases, and if we price our products in the foreign currency, we will receive less in U.S. dollars than we did before the rate increase went into effect. If we price our products in U.S. dollars and our competitors price their products in local currency, an increase in the relative strength of the U.S. dollar could result in our prices not being competitive in a market where business is transacted in the local currency.

In 2013,2016, approximately 76%91% of our revenuesnet sales denominated in foreign currencies were derived from European Union countries, and werewhich are denominated in Euros.the Euro; from the United Kingdom, which are denominated in the British pound; from Australia which are denominated in Australian dollar; and from Canada, which are denominated in the Canadian dollar. Additionally, we have significant intercompany receivables, payables, and debt with certain Europeanfrom our foreign subsidiaries whichthat are denominated in foreign currencies, principally the Euro.Euro, the Japanese yen, the British pound, the Australian dollar, and the Canadian dollar. Our principal exchange rate risk, therefore, exists between the U.S. dollar and the Euro.Euro, British pound, Australian dollar, and the Canadian dollar. Fluctuations from the beginning to the end of any given reporting period result in the re-measurementrevaluation of our foreign currency-denominated cash,intercompany receivables, payables, and debt generating currency transactiontranslation gains or losses that impact our non-operating income/income and expense levels in the respective periodperiod.
As discussed in Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,” we enter into certain short-term derivative financial instruments in the form of foreign currency forward contracts. These forward contracts are reporteddesigned to mitigate our exposure to currency fluctuations in our intercompany balances denominated currently in Euros, British pounds, and Canadian dollars. Any change in the fair value of these forward contracts as a result of a fluctuation in a currency exchange rate is expected to be offset by a change in the value of the intercompany balance. These contracts are effectively closed at the end of each reporting period.
A uniform 10% strengthening in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the currencies in which our transactions are denominated would have resulted in an increase in operating income of approximately $2.0 million for the year ended December 25, 2016. This hypothetical calculation assumes that each exchange rate would change in the same direction relative to the U.S. dollar. This sensitivity analysis of the effects of changes in foreign currency transaction gain (loss)exchange rates does not factor in our consolidated financial statements. In 2013 and 2012, we economically hedged our exposure to fluctuationsa potential change in sales levels or local currency prices, which can also be affected by the Euro and other currencies by entering into foreignchange in exchange forward contracts.

rates.


ITEM

Item 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Index to Consolidated Financial Statements

and Supplementary Data.

Wright Medical Group N.V.
Consolidated Financial Statements
for the Fiscal Years Ended December 25, 2016, December 27, 2015, and December 31, 2014
Index to Financial Statements

Page
64Consolidated Financial Statements: 

66

67

67

68

69

70



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders

of Tornier


Wright Medical Group N.V. and subsidiaries

:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of TornierWright Medical Group N.V. and subsidiaries as of December 29, 2013,25, 2016 and December 30, 2012,27, 2015, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, cash flows, and changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three fiscal years in the period ended December 29, 2013. Our audits also included the25, 2016, December 27, 2015, and December 31, 2014. These consolidated financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a). These financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of TornierWright Medical Group N.V. and subsidiaries atas of December 29, 201325, 2016 and December 30, 2012,27, 2015, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three fiscal years in the period ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, December 27, 2015, and December 31, 2014, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), TornierWright Medical Group N.V.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 29, 2013,25, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control-IntegratedControl ‑ Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (1992 framework)(COSO, and our report dated February 21, 2014,23, 2017 expressed an unqualifiedadverse opinion thereon.

/s/ Ernst & Youngon the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.


(signed) KPMG LLP

Minneapolis, MN


Memphis, Tennessee
February 21, 2014

23, 2017


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders

of Tornier

Wright Medical Group N.V. and Subsidiaries

:

We have audited TornierWright Medical Group N.V. and subsidiaries’’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 29, 2013,25, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Control ‑ Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (1992 framework) (the COSO criteria)(COSO). TornierWright Medical Group N.V. and subsidiaries’’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Overover Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the company’sCompany's internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, andrisk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’scompany's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, Tornier N.V. and subsidiaries maintained,

A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting, assuch that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of December 29, 2013, basedthe Company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. A material weakness related to ineffective general information technology controls has been identified and included in management’s assessment.The material weakness in internal control over financial reporting related to ineffective design and operation of general information technology controls related to user access to certain information technology systems that are relevant to the Company’s financial reporting processes and that are intended to ensure that access to financial applications and data is adequately restricted to appropriate personnel and monitored to ensure adherence to Company policies. As a result, the Company’s automated and manual controls that are dependent on the COSO criteria.

effective design and operation of general information technology controls were also ineffective because they could have been adversely impacted.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of TornierWright Medical Group N.V. and subsidiaries as of December 29, 201325, 2016 and December 30, 2012,27, 2015, and the related consolidated statementstatements of operations, comprehensive loss, cash flows, and changes in shareholders’ equity for the years ended December 25, 2016, December 27, 2015, and cash flows for eachDecember 31, 2014. This material weakness was considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of the three fiscal years in the period ended December 29, 20132016 consolidated financial statements, and this report does not affect our report dated February 21, 201423, 2017, which expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/s/ Ernst & Youngon those consolidated financial statements.

In our opinion, because of the effect of the aforementioned material weakness on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria, Wright Medical Group N.V. has not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 25, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control ‑ Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
We do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on management’s statements referring to corrective actions to be taken after December 25, 2016, relative to the aforementioned material weakness in internal control over financial reporting.
(signed) KPMG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Memphis, Tennessee
February 21, 2014

TORNIER N.V. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(U.S. dollars in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
 

Assets

   

Current assets:

   

Cash and cash equivalents

  $56,784   $31,108  

Accounts receivable (net of allowance of $5,080 and $4,846, respectively)

   55,555    54,192  

Inventories

   87,011    86,697  

Income taxes receivable

   —      382  

Deferred income taxes

   5,601    2,734  

Prepaid taxes

   14,667    14,752  

Prepaid expenses

   3,151    2,998  

Other current assets

   3,756    4,455  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total current assets

   226,525    197,318  

Instruments, net

   63,055    51,394  

Property, plant and equipment, net

   43,494    37,151  

Goodwill

   251,540    239,804  

Intangible assets, net

   117,608    126,594  

Deferred income taxes

   660    159  

Other assets

   2,544    1,807  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total assets

  $705,426   $654,227  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Liabilities and shareholders’ equity

   

Current liabilities:

   

Short-term borrowing and current portion of long-term debt

  $1,438   $4,595  

Accounts payable

   17,326    11,526  

Accrued liabilities

   50,714    44,410  

Income taxes payable

   397    83  

Contingent consideration, current

   6,428    —    

Deferred income taxes

   13    12  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total current liabilities

   76,316    60,626  

Long-term debt

   67,643    115,457  

Deferred income taxes

   21,489    20,284  

Contingent consideration, long-term

   6,528    15,265  

Other non-current liabilities

   7,642    6,516  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total liabilities

   179,618    218,148  

Shareholders’ equity:

   

Ordinary shares, €0.03 par value; authorized 175,000,000; issued and outstanding 48,508,612 and 41,728,257 at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively

   1,921    1,655  

Additional paid-in capital

   769,466    660,968  

Accumulated deficit

   (272,158  (235,732

Accumulated other comprehensive income

   26,579    9,188  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total shareholders’ equity

   525,808    436,079  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity

  $705,426   $654,227  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

23, 2017


Wright Medical Group N.V.
Consolidated Balance Sheets
(In thousands, except share data)

 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Assets:   
Current assets:   
Cash and cash equivalents$262,265
 $139,804
Restricted cash (Note 17)
150,000
 
Accounts receivable, net130,602
 131,050
Inventories (Note 5) 1
150,849
 210,701
Prepaid expenses 1
11,678
 14,923
Other current assets54,231
 44,919
Current assets held for sale (Note 4) 1

 18,487
Total current assets759,625
 559,884
    
Property, plant and equipment, net (Note 7) 1
201,732
 224,256
Goodwill (Note 8) 1
851,042
 866,989
Intangible assets, net (Note 8) 1
231,797
 250,928
Deferred income taxes (Note 11)
1,498
 2,580
Other assets 2
244,892
 137,174
Non-current assets held for sale (Note 4) 1

 31,683
Total assets 1, 2
$2,290,586
 $2,073,494
Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity:   
Current liabilities:   
Accounts payable$32,866
 $30,904
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities (Note 12) 1
407,704
 171,171
Current portion of long-term obligations (Note 9)
33,948
 2,171
Current liabilities held for sale (Note 4) 1

 2,692
Total current liabilities474,518
 206,938
    
Long-term debt and capital lease obligations (Note 9) 2
780,407
 561,201
Deferred income taxes (Note 11)
27,550
 41,755
Other liabilities (Note 12)
321,247
 208,574
Total liabilities 1, 2
1,603,722
 1,018,468
Commitments and contingencies (Note 16)

 
Shareholders’ equity:   
Ordinary shares, €0.03 par value, authorized: 320,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding: 103,400,995 shares at December 25, 2016 and 102,672,678 shares at December 27, 20153,815
 3,790
Additional paid-in capital1,908,749
 1,835,586
Accumulated other comprehensive loss(19,461) (10,484)
Accumulated deficit(1,206,239) (773,866)
Total shareholders’ equity686,864
 1,055,026
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity 1, 2
$2,290,586
 $2,073,494
1
The prior period amounts have been adjusted to reflect balances associated with our Large Joints business, as these amounts were classified as held for sale at December 27, 2015 (See Note 4).
2
The prior period debt issuance costs were reclassified to account for adoptions of ASU 2015-03 and ASU 2015-15 (See Note 2).
The accompanying notes are an integral part of thethese consolidated financial statements.

TORNIER N.V. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Statements of Operations

(U.S. dollars in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

   Fiscal year ended 
   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
  January 1,
2012
 

Revenue

  $310,959   $277,520   $261,191  

Cost of goods sold

   86,172    81,918    74,882  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Gross profit

   224,787    195,602    186,309  

Operating expenses:

    

Selling, general and administrative

   206,851    170,447    161,448  

Research and development

   22,387    22,524    19,839  

Amortization of intangible assets

   15,885    11,721    11,282  

Special charges

   3,738    19,244    892  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

   248,861    223,936    193,461  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Operating loss

   (24,074  (28,334  (7,152

Other income (expense):

    

Interest income

   245    338    550  

Interest expense

   (7,256  (3,733  (4,326

Foreign currency transaction (loss) gain

   (1,820  (473  193  

Loss on extinguishment of debt

   (1,127  (593  (29,475

Other non-operating (expense) income, net

   (45  116    1,330  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Loss before income taxes

   (34,077  (32,679  (38,880

Income tax (expense) benefit

   (2,349  10,935    8,424  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Consolidated net loss

  $(36,426 $(21,744 $(30,456
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net loss per share:

    

Basic and diluted

  $(0.79 $(0.54 $(0.80
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Weighted average shares outstanding:

    

Basic and diluted

   45,826    40,064    38,227  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

TORNIER N.V. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss

(U.S. dollars in thousands)

   Fiscal year ended 
   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
  January 1,
2012
 

Consolidated net loss

  $(36,426 $(21,744 $(30,456

Unrealized gain (loss) on retirement plans, net of tax

   95    (866  (32

Foreign currency translation adjustments

   17,296    4,938    (10,160
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Comprehensive loss

  $(19,036 $(17,672 $(40,648


Wright Medical Group N.V.
Consolidated Statements of Operations
(In thousands, except per share data)

 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 
December 27, 2015 4
 December 31, 2014
Net sales$690,362
 $405,326
 $298,027
Cost of sales 1, 2
192,407
 113,622
 73,223
Gross profit497,955
 291,704
 224,804
Operating expenses:     
Selling, general and administrative 1
541,558
 424,377
 289,620
Research and development 1
50,514
 39,339
 24,963
Amortization of intangible assets28,841
 16,754
 10,027
Total operating expenses620,913
 480,470
 324,610
Operating loss(122,958) (188,766) (99,806)
Interest expense, net58,530
 41,358
 17,398
Other (income) expense, net(3,148) 10,884
 129,626
Loss from continuing operations before income taxes(178,340) (241,008) (246,830)
Benefit for income taxes (Note 11)
(13,406) (3,652) (6,334)
Net loss from continuing operations$(164,934) $(237,356) $(240,496)
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax (Note 4)
$(267,439) $(61,345) $(19,187)
Net loss$(432,373) $(298,701) $(259,683)
      
Net loss from continuing operations per share-basic and diluted (Note 13): 3
$(1.60) $(3.66) $(4.69)
      
Net loss per share-basic and diluted (Note 13): 3
$(4.20) $(4.61) $(5.06)
      
Weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding-basic and diluted 3
102,968
 64,808
 51,293
___________________________
1
These line items include the following amounts of non-cash, share-based compensation expense for the periods indicated:
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
Cost of sales$414
 $287
 $254
Selling, general and administrative13,216
 22,777
 10,149
Research and development786
 1,900
 1,084
2
Cost of sales includes amortization of inventory step-up adjustment of $37.7 million and $10.3 million for the years ended December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, respectively.
3
The 2014 weighted-average shares outstanding and net loss per share amounts were converted to meet post-merger valuations as described within Note 13. The 2015 weighted-average shares outstanding includes additional shares issued on October 1, 2015 as part of the Wright/Tornier merger as described in Note 13.
4
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of thethese consolidated financial statements.

TORNIER


Wright Medical Group N.V. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

Comprehensive Loss

(U.S. dollars inIn thousands)

   Fiscal year ended 
   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
  January 1,
2012
 

Cash flows from operating activities:

    

Consolidated net loss

  $(36,426 $(21,744 $(30,456

Adjustments to reconcile consolidated net loss to cash provided by operating activities:

    

Depreciation and amortization

   36,566    30,232    28,107  

Impairment of fixed assets

   140    2,041    —    

Lease termination costs

   —      731    —    

Intangible impairment

   —      4,737    210  

Non-cash foreign currency loss (gain)

   1,829    (495  298  

Deferred income taxes

   3,566    (4,506  (11,619

Tax benefit from reversal of valuation allowance

   (1,120  (10,700  —    

Share-based compensation

   8,300    6,830    6,547  

Non-cash interest expense and discount amortization

   969    524    2,040  

Inventory obsolescence

   8,447    8,171    4,996  

Loss on extinguishment of debt

   1,127    —      29,475  

Incentive related to new facility lease

   —      1,400    —    

Acquired inventory step-up

   5,908    1,993    —    

Gain on reversal of OrthoHelix contingent consideration liability

   (5,140  —      —    

Other non-cash items affecting earnings

   1,095    1,836    (186

Changes in operating assets and liabilities, net of acquisitions:

    

Accounts receivable

   (1,084  (2,188  (4,673

Inventories

   (9,186  (3,057  (7,939

Accounts payable and accruals

   7,421    87    2,573  

Other current assets and liabilities

   4,704    (1,526  3,987  

Other non-current assets and liabilities

   (2,134  65    (194
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

   24,982    14,431    23,166  

Cash flows from investing activities:

    

Acquisition-related cash payments

   (10,148  (102,612  —    

Purchases of intangible assets

   (2,935  (1,410  (3,142

Additions of instruments

   (23,805  (11,999  (19,734

Property, plant and equipment lease incentive

   —      (1,400  —    

Purchases of property, plant and equipment

   (10,825  (9,891  (6,599

Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment

   —      1,517    —    
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net cash used in investing activities

   (47,713  (125,795  (29,475

Cash flows from financing activities:

    

Change in short-term debt

   (1,000  (8,009  (10,513

Repayments of long-term debt

   (54,095  (28,684  (8,147

Repayment of notes payable

   —      —      (116,108

Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt

   1,796    121,045    5,032  

Deferred financing costs

   (111  (5,396  (2,731

Issuance of ordinary shares from stock option exercises

   21,481    7,710    —    

Proceeds from other issuance of ordinary shares

   78,952    —      171,577  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net cash provided by financing activities

   47,023    86,666    39,110  

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents

   1,384    1,100    (2,933
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

   25,676    (23,598  29,868  

Cash and cash equivalents:

    

Beginning of period

   31,108    54,706    24,838  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

End of period

  $56,784   $31,108   $54,706  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Non cash investing and financing transactions:

    

Fixed assets acquired pursuant to capital lease

  $42   $560   $640  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Capitalized software development costs

  $1,180   $—     $—    
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Supplemental disclosure:

    

Income taxes paid

  $1,700   $2,937   $1,119  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Interest paid

  $6,043   $2,084   $2,235  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

  Fiscal year ended
  December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
       
Net loss $(432,373) $(298,701) $(259,683)
       
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:      
Changes in foreign currency translation (8,977) (12,882) (17,840)
Reclassification of gain on equity securities, net of taxes 
 
 1
Reclassification of currency translation adjustment (CTA) write-off to earnings related to liquidation of Japanese subsidiary 
 
 2,628
Reclassification of minimum pension liability to earnings 
 
 (344)
Other comprehensive loss (8,977) (12,882) (15,555)
       
Comprehensive loss $(441,350) $(311,583) $(275,238)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of thethese consolidated financial statements.

TORNIER N.V. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity

(U.S. dollars in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

   Ordinary Shares   Additional
Paid-In
  Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
  Accumulated  Total 
   Shares   Amount   Capital  Income (Loss)  Deficit  

Balance at January 2, 2011

   29,569    $1,156    $437,307   $15,308   $(183,532 $270,239  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net loss attributable to Tornier

   —       —       —      —      (30,456  (30,456

Unrealized loss on retirement plans

   —       —       —      (32  —      (32

Foreign currency translation adjustments

   —       —       —      (10,160  —      (10,160

Initial public offering financing costs

   —       —       (17,962  —      —      (17,962

Issuances of ordinary shares related to initial public offering

   9,471     394     179,560    —      —      179,954  

Issuance of ordinary shares related to stock option exercises

   230     10     3,310    —      —      3,320  

Share-based compensation

   —       —       6,557    —      —      6,557  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Balance at January 1, 2012

   39,270    $1,560    $608,772   $5,116   $(213,988 $401,460  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net loss

   —       —       —      —      (21,744  (21,744

Unrealized loss on retirement plans

   —       —       —      (866  —      (866

Foreign currency translation adjustments

   —       —       —      4,938    —      4,938  

Issuances of ordinary shares related to acquisition of OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc.

   1,941     75     37,954    —      —      38,029  

Issuances of ordinary shares related to employee stock purchase plan

   8     1     169    —      —      170  

Issuances of ordinary shares for restricted stock units

   50     2     (2  —      —      —    

Issuance of ordinary shares related to stock option exercises

   459     17     7,523    —      —      7,540  

Share-based compensation

   —       —       6,552    —      —      6,552  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Balance at December 30, 2012

   41,728    $1,655    $660,968   $9,188   $(235,732 $436,079  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net loss

   —       —       —      —      (36,426  (36,426

Unrealized loss on retirement plans

   —       —       —      95    —      95  

Foreign currency translation adjustments

   —       —       —      17,296    —      17,296  

Secondary offering financing costs

   —       —       (4,878  —      —      (4,878

Issuance of ordinary shares related to public offering

   5,175     202     83,375    —      —      83,577  

Issuances of ordinary shares related to employee stock purchase plan

   15     1     253    —      —      254  

Issuances of ordinary shares for restricted stock units

   98     4     (4  —      —      —    

Issuance of ordinary shares related to stock option exercises

   1,493     59     21,422    —      —      21,481  

Share-based compensation

   —       —       8,330    —      —      8,330  
�� 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Balance at December 29, 2013

   48,509    $1,921    $769,466   $26,579   $(272,158 $525,808  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 



Wright Medical Group N.V.
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(In thousands)

 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, December 27, December 27,
 2016 2015 2014
Operating activities:     
Net loss$(432,373) $(298,701) $(259,683)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:     
Depreciation56,782
 29,481
 18,582
Share-based compensation expense (Note 14)
14,416
 24,964
 11,487
Amortization of intangible assets29,180
 16,922
 10,027
Amortization of deferred financing costs and debt discount40,487
 27,600
 10,969
Deferred income taxes (Note 11)
(20,583) (3,087) (396)
Provision for excess and obsolete inventory 1
22,046
 14,218
 3,967
Write-off of deferred financing costs12,343
 25,101
 
Excess tax benefit from share-based compensation arrangements
 
 (59)
Amortization of inventory step-up adjustment41,503
 11,356
 
Non-cash adjustment to derivative fair value(28,273) (10,045) 2,000
Loss (gain) on sale of business (Note 4)
21,342
 
 (24,277)
Mark-to-market adjustment for CVRs (Note 2)
8,688
 (7,571) 125,012
Reduction of insurance receivable
 25,000
 
Other4,425
 4,780
 2,582
Changes in assets and liabilities (net of acquisitions):     
Accounts receivable(1,118) (13,078) (11,970)
Inventories 1
(187) (24,695) (25,317)
Prepaid expenses and other current assets22,441
 (10,471) 30,531
Accounts payable1,495
 (2,919) 12,907
Accrued expenses and other liabilities(11,251) 23,258
 (22,364)
CVR payment in excess of value assigned as part of PPA
 (27,983) 
Provision for metal on metal product liabilities (Note 16)
256,461
 
 
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities37,824
 (195,870) (116,002)
Investing activities:     
Capital expenditures(50,099) (43,666) (48,603)
Acquisition of businesses
 (4,905) (80,556)
Purchase of intangible assets(4,845) (82) (11,693)
Cash acquired from merger with Tornier
 30,117
 
Sales and maturities of available-for-sale marketable securities
 2,566
 11,795
Proceeds from sale of businesses20,703
 
 274,687
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities(34,241) (15,970) 145,630
Financing activities:     
Issuance of ordinary shares8,460
 3,513
 37,201
Proceeds from stock warrants54,629
 87,072
 
Payment of note hedge options(99,816) (144,843) 
Repurchase of stock warrants(3,319) (59,803) 
Payment of notes premium(1,619) (49,152) 
Proceeds from notes hedge options3,892
 69,764
 
Payment of debt acquired from merger with Tornier
 (81,367) 
Proceeds from debt425,821
 632,500
 
Redemption of convertible notes(102,974) (240,000) (3,768)
Payments of deferred financing costs and equity issuance costs(11,108) (20,081) 
Payment of contingent consideration(1,035) (70,120) 
Payments of capital leases(2,514) (621) (441)
Excess tax benefit from share-based compensation arrangements
 
 59
Net cash provided by financing activities270,417
 126,862
 33,051
      

Wright Medical Group N.V.
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Continued)
(In thousands)

 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, December 27, December 27,
 2016 2015 2014
Effect of exchange rates on cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash(1,539) (2,544) (4,088)
      
Net increase (decrease) in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash272,461
 (87,522) 58,591
      
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash, beginning of year139,804
 227,326
 168,735
      
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash, end of year (Note 17)
$412,265
 $139,804
 $227,326
___________________________
1
During 2015, the 2014 balances were reclassified to show separate presentation related to provision for excess and obsolete inventory.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of thethese consolidated financial statements.

TORNIER


Wright Medical Group N.V.
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity
For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014, December 27, 2015, and December 25, 2016
(In thousands, except share data)
 Ordinary shares 
Additional paid-in capital 1
  Retained earnings/ (accumulated deficit) Accumulated other comprehensive income Total shareholders' equity
 
Number of
shares 1
 
Amount 1
 
Balance at December 31, 201349,476,738
 $1,956
 $655,287
 $(215,482) $17,953
 $459,714
2014 Activity:           
Net loss
 
 
 (259,683) 
 (259,683)
Foreign currency translation
 
 
 
 (17,840) (17,840)
Reclassification of gain on equity securities, net of taxes
 
 
 
 1
 1
Minimum pension liability
adjustment 2

 
 
 
 (344) (344)
Currency translation adjustment (CTA) write-off to earnings related to liquidation of Japanese subsidiary 2

 
 
 
 2,628
 2,628
Issuances of ordinary shares1,718,100
 68
 37,132
 
 
 37,200
Ordinary shares issued in connection with Solana acquisition1,406,799
 57
 41,387
 
 
 41,444
Grant of restricted stock awards252,477
 
 
 
 
 
Forfeitures of restricted stock awards(24,051) 
 
 
 
 
Vesting of restricted stock units83,030
 20
 (20) 
 
 
Share-based compensation
 
 15,683
 
 
 15,683
Balance at December 31, 201452,913,093
 $2,101
 $749,469
 $(475,165) $2,398
 $278,803
2015 Activity:           
Net loss
 $
 $
 $(298,701) $
 $(298,701)
Foreign currency translation
 $
 $
 $
 $(12,882) $(12,882)
Issuances of ordinary shares160,306
 $6
 $3,514
 $
 $
 $3,520
Ordinary shares issued in connection with Tornier merger49,569,007
 $1,666
 $1,032,570
 $
 $
 $1,034,236
Grant of restricted stock awards5,246
 $
��$
 $
 $
 $
Forfeitures of restricted stock awards(5,869) $
 $
 $
 $
 $
Vesting of restricted stock units30,895
 $17
 $(17) $
 $
 $
Share-based compensation
 $
 $24,803
 $
 $
 $24,803
Issuance of stock warrants, net of equity issuance costs
 $
 $25,247
 $
 $
 $25,247
Balance at December 27, 2015102,672,678
 $3,790
 $1,835,586
 $(773,866) $(10,484) $1,055,026
2016 Activity:           
Net loss
 $
 $
 $(432,373) $
 $(432,373)
Foreign currency translation
 $
 $
 $
 $(8,977) $(8,977)
Issuances of ordinary shares440,355
 $15
 $8,455
 $
 $
 $8,470
Vesting of restricted stock units287,962
 $10
 $(10) $
 $
 $
Share-based compensation
 $
 $14,406
 $
 $
 $14,406
Issuance of stock warrants, net of repurchases and equity issuance costs
 $
 $50,312
 $
 $
 $50,312
Balance at December 25, 2016103,400,995
 $3,815
 $1,908,749
 $(1,206,239) $(19,461) $686,864
1
During 2015, the 2014 balances of ordinary shares and additional paid in capital were restated to meet post-merger conversion values as further described within Note 13.
2
The balances of CTA and minimum pension liability adjustment within AOCI were written-off in 2014 following the liquidation of our former Japanese subsidiary as part of the sale of our OrthoRecon business. This was recorded within the gain on the sale of the OrthoRecon business within results of discontinued operations.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

1. Organization and Description of Business Description

Tornier

Wright Medical Group N.V. (Tornier or the Company) is a global medical device company focused on providingextremities and biologics products. We are committed to delivering innovative, value-added solutions to surgeons that treat musculoskeletal injuriesimproving quality of life for patients worldwide and disordersare a recognized leader of surgical solutions for the upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand), lower extremities (foot and ankle) and biologics markets, three of the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, ankle and foot, referred to as “extremity joints.” The Company sells to this surgeon base a broad line of joint replacement, trauma, sports medicine and biologicfastest growing segments in orthopaedics. We market our products to treat extremity joints. In certain international markets, the Company also offers joint replacement products for the hip and knee.

Tornier’sin over50 countries worldwide.

Our global corporate headquarters are located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The CompanyWe also hashave significant operations located in Memphis, Tennessee (U.S. headquarters, research and development, sales and marketing administration, and administrative activities); Bloomington, Minnesota (U.S. headquarters,(upper extremities sales and marketing and distributionwarehousing operations); Arlington, Tennessee (manufacturing and administration), Grenoble,warehousing operations); Franklin, Tennessee (manufacturing and warehousing operations); Montbonnot, France (OUS headquarters, manufacturing(manufacturing and researchwarehousing operations); and development), Macroom, Ireland (manufacturing), Warsaw, Indiana (research and development) and Medina, Ohio (marketing, research and development). In addition, the Company conductswe have local sales and distribution activities across 13 sales offices in Canada, Australia, Asia, Latin America, and throughout Europe, Asia, AustraliaEurope. For purposes of this report, references to "international" or "foreign" relate to non-U.S. matters while references to "domestic" relate to U.S. matters.
Upon completion of the merger between Wright Medical Group, Inc. (legacy Wright or WMG) and Canada.

BasisTornier N.V. (legacy Tornier) (the Wright/Tornier merger or merger) effective October 1, 2015, Robert J. Palmisano, former President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Presentation

The Company’slegacy Wright, became President and CEO of the combined company, and Lance A. Berry, former Senior Vice President (SVP) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of legacy Wright, became SVP and CFO. Immediately upon completion of the merger, legacy Wright shareholders owned approximately 52% of the combined company and legacy Tornier shareholders owned approximately 48% of the combined company, and our board of directors was comprised of five representatives from legacy Wright's board of directors and five representatives from legacy Tornier's board of directors. In connection with the merger, the trading symbol for our ordinary shares changed from “TRNX” to “WMGI.” Because of these and other facts and circumstances, the merger was accounted for as a “reverse acquisition” under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (US GAAP), and as such, legacy Wright was considered the acquiring entity for accounting purposes. Therefore, legacy Wright’s historical results of operations replaced legacy Tornier’s historical results of operations for all periods prior to the merger. More specifically, the accompanying consolidated financial statements for periods prior to the merger are those of legacy Wright and its subsidiaries, and for periods subsequent to the merger also include legacy Tornier and its subsidiaries.

Beginning in 2015 as a result of the Wright/Tornier merger, our fiscal year-end is generally determined on a 52-week basis consistingand runs from the Monday nearest to the 31st of four 13 week quartersDecember of a year, and always fallsends on the Sunday nearest to the 31st of December 31.

of the following year. Every few years, it is necessary to add an extra week to the year making it a 53-week period. Prior to the merger, our fiscal year ended December 31 each year.

The consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes present theour consolidated results of the Company for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, December 30, 201227, 2015, and January 1, 2012.

On January 28, 2011, the Company executed a 3-to-1 reverse stock split of the Company’s ordinary shares.

On January 28, 2011, the Company made a change to its legal form by converting from Tornier B.V., a private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) to Tornier N.V., a public company with limited liability (naamloze vennootschap).

In February 2011, the Company completed an initial public offering of 8,750,000 ordinary shares at an offering price of $19.00 per share (before underwriters’ discounts and commissions). The Company received proceeds of approximately $149.2 million (after underwriters’ discounts and commissions of approximately $10.8 million and additional offering related costs of $6.2 million). Net proceeds were used for the retirement of debt, working capital and other general corporate purposes. Additionally, on March 7, 2011, the Company issued an additional 721,274 ordinary shares at an offering price of $19.00 per share (before underwriters’ discounts and commissions) due to the exercise of the underwriters’ overallotment option. The Company received additional net proceeds of approximately $12.8 million (after underwriters’ discounts and commissions of approximately $0.9 million).

December 31, 2014.

All amounts are presented in U.S. Dollar (“$”dollars ($), except where expressly stated as being in other currencies, e.g., Euros (“€”(€).

References in these notes to consolidated financial statements to "we," "our" and "us" refer to Wright Medical Group N.V. and its subsidiaries after the Wright/Tornier merger and Wright Medical Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries before the merger.
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Consolidation

Principles of consolidation.The accompanying consolidated financial statements include theour accounts and those of the Company and all of its wholly and majority ownedour wholly-owned subsidiaries. In consolidation, all material intercompanyIntercompany accounts and transactions are eliminated.

have been eliminated in consolidation.

Use of Estimates

estimates.The consolidatedpreparation of financial statements are prepared in conformity with United States generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) and include amounts that are based on management’s bestUS GAAP requires management to make estimates and judgments.assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Foreign Currency Translation

The functional currenciesmost significant areas requiring the use of management estimates relate to revenue recognition, the determination of allowances for doubtful accounts and excess and obsolete inventories, accounting for business combinations and the evaluation of goodwill and long-lived assets, valuation of in-process research and development, product liability claims, product liability insurance recoveries and other litigation, income taxes, and share-based compensation.

Discontinued operations. On October 21, 2016, pursuant to a binding offer letter dated as of July 8, 2016, Tornier France SAS and certain other entities related to us and Corin Orthopaedics Holdings Limitied (Corin) entered into a business sale agreement and simultaneously completed and closed the sale of our Large Joints business. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we sold substantially all of our assets related to our Large Joints business to Corin for approximately €29.7 million in cash, less approximately €10.7 million for net working capital adjustments. Upon closing, the parties also executed a transitional services agreement and supply agreement, among other ancillary agreements required to implement the transaction. These agreements are on arm’s length terms and are not expected to be material to our financial statements.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

On January 9, 2014, pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 18, 2013 (the MicroPort Agreement), by and among us and MicroPort Scientific Corporation (MicroPort), we completed the divesture and sale of our business operations operating under our prior OrthoRecon operating segment (the OrthoRecon Business) to MicroPort. Pursuant to the terms of the MicroPort Agreement, the purchase price (as defined in the agreement) for the CompanyOrthoRecon Business was approximately $283 million (including a working capital adjustment), which MicroPort paid in cash.
All historical operating results for the Large Joints and allOrthoRecon businesses, including costs associated with corporate employees and infrastructure transferred as a part of the Company’s wholly owned subsidiariessales, are their local currencies. The reporting currency of the Company is the U.S. dollar. Accordingly, the consolidated financial statements of the Company and its international subsidiaries are translated into U.S. dollars using current exchange rates for the consolidated balance sheets and average exchange rates forreflected within discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of operations. See Note 4 for further discussion of discontinued operations. Other than Note 4, unless otherwise stated, all discussion of assets and liabilities in these Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements reflect the assets and liabilities held and used in our continuing operations, and all discussion of revenues and expenses reflect those associated with our continuing operations.
Cash and cash flows. Unrealized translation gainsequivalents. Cash and lossescash equivalents include all cash balances and short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less. Any such investments are readily convertible into known amounts of cash, and are so near their maturity that they present insignificant risk of changes in value because of interest rate variation.
Restricted cash. Amounts included in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in shareholders’ equity. When a transaction is denominatedrestricted cash represent those required to be held in a currencyrestricted escrow account by a contractual agreement to secure the obligations of Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (WMT) under the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) as described in Note 16. For additional information regarding restricted cash, see Note 17.
Inventories. Our inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. Inventory costs include material, labor costs, and manufacturing overhead.
During the quarter ended December 27, 2015, we adjusted our estimate for excess and obsolete (E&O) inventory which resulted in a charge of $4.1 million. Our new E&O estimate was based on both the current age of kit inventory as compared to its estimated life cycle and our forecasted product demand and production requirements for other thaninventory items for the subsidiary’s functional currency, the Company recognizes a transaction gain or loss innext 36 months. Total charges incurred to write down excess and obsolete inventory to net earnings. Foreign currency transaction (losses) gainsrealizable value included in net earnings“Cost of sales” were $(1.8)approximately $21.5 million, $(0.5)$14.2 million, and $0.2 million during the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively.

Revenue Recognition

The Company derives revenue from the sale of medical devices that are used by orthopaedic and general surgeons who treat diseases and disorders of extremity joints, including the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, ankle and foot, and large joints, including the hip and knee. Revenue is generated from sales to two types of customers: healthcare institutions and stocking distributors, with sales to healthcare institutions representing a majority of the Company’s revenue. Revenue from sales to healthcare institutions is recognized at the time of surgical implantation. Revenue from sales to stocking distributors is recorded at the time the product is shipped to the distributor. These stocking distributors, who sell the products to their customers, take title to the products and assume all risks of ownership at the time of shipment. Stocking distributors are obligated to pay within specified terms regardless of when, if ever, they sell the products. In certain circumstances, the Company may accept sales returns from distributors and in certain situations in which the right of return exists, the Company estimates a reserve for sales returns and recognizes the reserve as a reduction of revenue. The Company bases its estimate for sales returns on historical sales and product return information including historical experience and trend information. The Company’s reserve for sales returns has historically been immaterial.

Shipping and Handling

Amounts billed to customers for shipping and handling of products are reflected in revenue and are not considered significant. Costs related to shipping and handling of products are expensed as incurred, are included in selling, general and administrative expense, and were $5.7 million, $5.1 million and $5.2$4.0 million for the years ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, December 30, 201227, 2015, and January 1, 2012,December 31, 2014, respectively.

Cash During the year ended December 25, 2016, we recorded $4.1 million of provisions for excess and Cash Equivalents

Cash equivalentsobsolete inventory for product rationalization initiatives. Additionally, charges in 2016 are highly liquid investmentshigher than prior years due to the additional inventories subject to reserves following the Wright/Tornier merger.

Product liability claims and related insurance recoveries and other litigation. We are involved in legal proceedingsinvolving product liability claims as well as contract, patent protection, and other matters. See Note 16 for additional information regarding product liability claims, product liability insurance recoveries, and other litigation.
We make provisions for claims specifically identified for which we believe the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be estimated. For unresolved contingencies with potentially material exposure that are deemed reasonably possible, we evaluate whether a potential loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. Our evaluation of these matters is the result of a comprehensive process designed to ensure that recognition of a loss or disclosure of these contingencies is made in a timely manner. In determining whether a loss should be accrued or a loss contingency disclosed, we evaluate a number of factors including: the procedural status of each lawsuit; any opportunities for dismissal of the lawsuit before trial; the amount of time remaining before trial date; the status of discovery; the status of settlement; arbitration or mediation proceedings; and management’s estimate of the likelihood of success prior to or at trial. The estimates used to establish a range of loss and the amounts to accrue are based on previous settlement experience, consultation with legal counsel, and management’s settlement strategies. If the estimate of a probable loss is in a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range. We recognize legal fees as an original maturity of three months or less. The carrying amount reportedexpense in the consolidated balance sheets for cashperiod incurred. These expenses are reflected in either continuing or discontinued operations depending on the product associated with the claim.
We record insurance recoveries from product liability insurance that is in force when they are realized or realizable, normally when we believe it is probable that the insurance carrier will settle the claim.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

Property, plant and cash equivalentsequipment. Our property, plant and equipment is cost,stated at cost. Depreciation, which approximates fair value.

Accounts Receivable

Accounts receivable consistincludes amortization of customer trade receivables. The Company maintains an allowance for doubtful accounts forassets under capital lease, is generally provided on a straight-line basis over the estimated losses in the collection of accounts receivable. The Company makes estimates regarding the future ability of its customers to make required paymentsuseful lives generally based on historical credit experience, delinquencythe following categories:

Land improvements 15to25years
Buildings and building improvements 10to40years
Machinery and equipment 3to14years
Furniture, fixtures and office equipment 4to14years
Surgical instruments   6years
Expenditures for major renewals and expected future trends. The majoritybetterments, including leasehold improvements, that extend the useful life of the Company’s receivablesassets are capitalized and depreciated over the remaining life of the asset or lease term, if shorter. Maintenance and repair costs are charged to expense as incurred. Upon sale or retirement, the asset cost and related accumulated depreciation are eliminated from healthcare institutions, manythe respective accounts and any resulting gain or loss is included in income.
Valuation of which arelong-lived assets.government-funded. The Company’s allowance Management periodically evaluates carrying values of long-lived assets, including property, plant and equipment and finite-lived intangible assets, when events and circumstances indicate that these assets may have been impaired. We account for doubtful accounts was $5.1 million and $4.8 million at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively. Accounts receivable are written off whenthe impairment of long-lived assets in accordance with FASB ASC 360. Accordingly, we evaluate impairment of our long-lived assets based upon an analysis of estimated undiscounted future cash flows. If it is determined that a change is required in the useful life of an asset, future depreciation and amortization is adjusted accordingly. Alternatively, should we determine that an asset is impaired, an adjustment would be charged to income based on the difference between the asset’s fair market value and the asset's carrying value.
Intangible assets and goodwill. Goodwill is recognized for the excess of the purchase price over the fair value of net assets of businesses acquired. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 350-30-35-18 requires companies to evaluate for impairment intangible assets not subject to amortization, such as our in-process research and development (IPRD) assets, if events or changes in circumstances indicate than an asset might be impaired. Further, FASB ASC 350-20-35-30 requires companies to evaluate goodwill and intangibles not subject to amortization for impairment between annual impairment tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. Unless circumstances otherwise dictate, the annual impairment test is performed on October 1 each year. See Note 8 for discussion of our 2016 goodwill impairment analysis.
Our intangible assets with estimable useful lives are amortized on a straight-line basis over their respective estimated useful lives to their estimated residual values. This method of amortization approximates the expected future cash flow generated from their use. Finite-lived intangibles are reviewed for impairment in accordance with FASB ASC Section 360, Property, Plant and Equipment (FASB ASC 360). The weighted average amortization periods for completed technology, distribution channels, trademarks, licenses, customer relationships, non-compete agreements, and other intangible assets are 10 years, 5 years, 5 years, 12 years, 18 years, 3 years and 3 years, respectively. The weighted average amortization period of our intangible assets on a combined basis is 13 years.
Allowances for doubtful accounts. We experience credit losses on our accounts receivable; and accordingly, we must make estimates related to the ultimate collection of our accounts receivable. Specifically, we analyze our accounts receivable, historical bad debt experience, customer concentrations, customer creditworthiness, and current economic trends when evaluating the adequacy of our allowance for doubtful accounts.
The majority of our accounts receivable are from hospitals and surgery centers. Our collection history has been favorable with minimal bad debts from these customers. We write off accounts receivable when we determine that the accounts receivable are uncollectible, typically upon customer bankruptcy or the customer’s non-response to continuedrepeated collection efforts.

Our allowance for doubtful accounts totaled $4.5 million and $1.2 million at December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, respectively.

Concentration of credit risk.Financial instruments that potentially subject the Companyus to concentrations of credit risk consist principally of accounts receivable. Management attempts to minimize credit risk by reviewing customers’ credit history before extending credit and by monitoring credit exposure on a regular basis. The allowance for doubtful accounts is established based upon factors surrounding the credit risk of specific customers, historical trends and other information. Collateral or other security is generally not required for accounts receivable. As
Concentrations of supply of raw material. We rely on a limited number of suppliers for the components used in our products. For certain human biologic products, such as AllomatrixTM, we depend on one supplier of demineralized bone matrix and cancellous bone matrix. We rely on one supplier for our GRAFTJACKET® family of soft tissue repair and graft containment products. We maintain adequate stock from these suppliers in order to meet market demand. Additionally, we have other soft tissue repair products

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

which include our CONEXA™ Reconstructive Tissue Matrix, ACTISHIELD™ and ACTISHIELD™ CF Amniotic Barrier Membranes, VIAFLOW™ and VIAFLOW™ C Flowable Placental Tissue Matrices, BIOFIBER® biologic absorbable scaffold products, and PHANTOM FIBER™ high strength, resorbable suture products.
We rely on one supplier for a key component of our AUGMENT® Bone Graft. In December 29, 2013, there wereour supplier notified us of its intent to terminate the supply agreement in December 2015. This supplier was contractually required to meet our supply requirements until the termination date, and to use commercially reasonable efforts to assist us in identifying a new supplier and support the transfer of technology and supporting documentation to produce this component. In April 2016, we entered into a commercial supply agreement with FUJIFILM Diosynth Biotechnologies U.S.A., Inc. pursuant to which Fujifilm agreed to manufacture and sell to us and we agreed to purchase the key component of our AUGMENT® Bone Graft.  Pursuant to our supply agreement with Fujifilm, commercial production of the key component is expected to begin in 2019. Although we believe that our current supply of the key component from our former supplier should be sufficient to last until after the component becomes available under the new agreement, no customersassurance can be provided that it will be sufficient.
Income taxes. Income taxes are accounted for more than 10% of accounts receivable.

Royalties

The Company pays royalties to certain individuals and companies that have developed and retain the legal rightspursuant to the technology or have assisted the Companyprovisions of FASB ASC Section 740, Income Taxes (FASB ASC 740). Our effective tax rate is based on income by tax jurisdiction, statutory rates, and tax saving initiatives available to us in the development of technology or new products. These royalties are based on sales and are reflected as selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations.

Inventories

Inventories, net of reserves for obsolete and slow-moving goods, are stated at the lower of cost or market value. Cost is determined on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. Costs included in the value of inventory that Tornier manufactures include the material costs, direct labor costs and manufacturing and distribution overhead costs. Inventories consist of raw materials, work-in-process and finished goods. Finished goods inventories are held primarily in the United States, several countries in Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia and consist primarily of joint implants and related orthopaedic products. Inventory balances, net of reserves, consist of the following (in thousands):

   December 29,
2013
   December 30,
2012
 

Raw materials

  $6,840    $5,696  

Work in process

   9,171     4,933  

Finished goods

   71,000     76,068  
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

  $87,011    $86,697  
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

The Company regularly reviews inventory quantities on-hand for excess and obsolete inventory and, when circumstances indicate, incurs charges to write down inventories to their net realizable value. The Company’s review of inventory for excess and obsolete quantities is based primarily on the estimated forecast of future product demand, production requirements, and introduction of new products. The Company recognized $8.4 million, $8.2 million and $5.0 million of expense for excess and obsolete inventory in cost of goods sold during the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively. The increase in excess and obsolete charges in 2012 included a $3.0 million charge related to rationalization of products associated with the integration of OrthoHelix into Tornier. Additionally, the Company had $47.8 million and $44.5 million in inventory held on consignment with third-party distributors and healthcare facilities, among others, at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively.

Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, plant and equipment are carried at cost less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method based on estimated useful lives of five to thirty-nine years for buildings and improvements and two to eight years for machinery and equipment. The cost of maintenance and repairs is expensed as incurred. The Company reviews property, plant and equipment for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable. An impairment loss would be recognized when estimated future undiscounted cash flows relating to the asset are less than the asset’s carrying amount. An impairment loss is measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its fair value.

For the year ended December 29, 2013, the Company recorded $0.1 million in impairment related to the fixed assets located in Medina, Ohio that the Company is abandoning as part of its OrthoHelix restructuring plan. As a result of the Company’s facilities consolidation initiative in 2012, the Company recorded several fixed asset impairments related to the Company’s facilities in St. Ismier, France, Dunmanway, Ireland, and Stafford, Texas in the aggregate amount of $0.9 million for the year ended December 30, 2012.

Software Development Costs

The Company capitalizes certain computer software and software development costs incurred in connection with developing or obtaining computer software for internal use when both the preliminary project stage is completed and it is probable that the software will be used as intended. Capitalized software costs generally include external direct costs of materials and services utilized in developing or obtaining computer software and compensation and related benefits for employees who are directly associated with the software project. Capitalized software costs are included in property, plant and equipment on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet and amortized on a straight-line basis when the software is ready for its intended use over the estimated useful lives of the software, which approximate three to ten years.

Instruments

Instruments are surgical tools used by orthopaedic and general surgeons during joint replacement and other surgical procedures to facilitate the implantation of the Company’s products. Instruments are recognized as long-lived assets. Instruments and instrument parts that have not been placed in service are carried at cost, and are included as instruments in progress within instruments, net on the consolidated balance sheets. Once placed in service, instruments are carried at cost, less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method based on average estimated useful lives. Estimated useful lives are determined principally in reference to associated product life cycles, and average five years.

Instrument parts used to maintain the functionality of instruments but do not extend the life of the instruments are expensed as they are consumed and recorded as part of selling, general and administrative expense. The Company reviews instruments for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. An impairment loss would be recognized when estimated future undiscounted cash flows relating to the assets are less than the assets’ carrying amount. An impairment loss is measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its fair value. No impairment losses were recognized during the years ended December 29, 2013 and January 1, 2012. The Company recorded impairment charges of $1.0 million during the year ended December 30, 2012 related to instrument sets and components that were impaired as a result of revisions to existing product lines. Instruments included in long-term assets on the consolidated balance sheets are as follows (in thousands):

   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
 

Instruments

  $99,754   $85,869  

Instruments in progress

   23,990    18,171  

Accumulated depreciation

   (60,689  (52,646
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Instruments, net

  $63,055   $51,394  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

The Company provides instruments to surgeons for use in surgeries and retains title to the instruments. As instruments are used as tools to assist surgeons, depreciation of instruments is recognized as a selling, general and administrative expense. Instrument depreciation expense was $13.9 million, $12.4 million and $11.0 million during the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively.

Business Combinations

For all business combinations, the Company records all assets and liabilities of the acquired business, including goodwill and other identified intangible assets, generally at their fair values starting in the period when the acquisition is completed. Contingent consideration, if any, is recognized at its fair value on the acquisition date and changes in fair value are recognized in earnings until settlement. Acquisition-related transaction costs are expensed as incurred.

Goodwill

Goodwill is recognized as the excess of the purchase price over the fair value of net assets of businesses acquired. Goodwill is not amortized, but is subject to impairment tests. Based on the Company’s single business approach todecision-making, planning and resource allocation, management has determined that the Company has one reporting unit for the purpose of evaluating goodwill for impairment. The Company performs its annual goodwill impairment test as of the first day of the fourth quarter of its fiscal year or more frequently if changes in circumstances or the occurrence of events suggest that an impairment exists. Impairment tests are done by qualitatively assessing the likeliness for impairment and then, if necessary, comparing the reporting unit’s fair value to its carrying amount to determine if there is potential impairment. If the fair value of the reporting unit is less than its carrying value, an impairment loss is recorded to the extent that the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill is less than the carrying value of the reporting unit’s goodwill. The fair value of the reporting unit and the implied fair value of goodwill are determined based on widely accepted valuation techniques. No goodwill impairment losses were recorded during the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012 as the fair value of the reporting unit significantly exceeded its carrying value.

Intangible Assets

Intangible assets with an indefinite life, including certain trademarks and trade names, are not amortized, but are tested for impairment annually or whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. Any amount of impairment loss to be recorded would be determined based upon the excess of the asset’s carrying value over its fair value. No impairment losses on indefinite life intangibles were recorded during the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012. The useful lives of these assets are also assessed annually to determine whether events and circumstances continue to support an indefinite life.

Intangible assets with a finite life, including developed technology, customer relationships, and patents and licenses, are amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, ranging from one to twenty years. Costs incurred to extend or renew license arrangements are capitalized as incurred and amortized over the shorter of the life of the extension or renewal, or the remaining useful life of the underlying product being licensed. Intangible assets with a finite life are tested for impairment whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. An impairment loss would be recognized when estimated future undiscounted cash flows relating to the asset are less than the asset’s carrying amount and would be measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its fair value. For the year ended December 29, 2013, the Company recognized an impairment charge of $0.1 million related to license

intangibles that are no longer being used. For the year ended December 30, 2012, the Company recognized an impairment charge of $4.7 million related to developed technology and customer relationship intangibles whose fair values were negatively impacted by the acquisition of OrthoHelix. The fair value of the intangibles was determined using a discounted cash flow analysis. For the year ended January 1, 2012, the Company recognized an impairment charge of $0.2 million related to developed technology from acquired entities that was no longer being used. For the years ended December 29, 2013 and January 1, 2012, intangible asset impairments are included in amortization of intangible assets in the consolidated statements of operations. For the year ended December 30, 2012, intangible asset impairments are included in special charges on the consolidated statement of operations as they related directly to the acquisition and integration of OrthoHelix.

Derivative Financial Instruments

All of the Company’s derivative instruments are economic hedges and are recorded in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as either an asset or liability and are measured at fair value. The changes in the derivative’s fair value are recognized in earnings as a component of foreign currency transaction gain (loss) in the periodvarious jurisdictions in which the change occurred.

Researchwe operate. Significant judgment is required in determining our effective tax rate and Development

All researchevaluating our tax positions. This process includes assessing temporary differences resulting from differing recognition of items for income tax and development costs are expensed as incurred.

Income Taxes

Deferredfinancial accounting purposes. These differences result in deferred tax assets and liabilities, which are determined based on differences between the financial reporting and tax basesincluded within our consolidated balance sheet. The measurement of assets and liabilities and are measured using the enacted tax rates in effect for the years in which the differences are expected to reverse. Valuation allowances for deferred tax assets are recognizedis reduced by a valuation allowance if, based upon available evidence, it is more likely than not that some component or all of the benefits of deferred tax assets will not be realized.

The Company accrues interest See Note 11 for further discussion of our consolidated deferred tax assets and penalties related toliabilities, and the associated valuation allowance.

We provide for unrecognized tax benefits based upon our assessment of whether a tax position is “more-likely-than-not” to be sustained upon examination by the tax authorities. If a tax position meets the more-likely-than-not standard, then the related tax benefit is measured based on a cumulative probability analysis of the amount that is more-likely-than-not to be realized upon ultimate settlement or disposition of the underlying tax position.
Other taxes. Taxes assessed by a governmental authority that are imposed concurrent with our revenue transactions with customers are presented on a net basis in our consolidated statements of operations.
Revenue recognition. Our revenues are primarily generated through two types of customers, hospitals and surgery centers, and stocking distributors, with the majority of our revenue derived from sales to hospitals. Our products are primarily sold through a network of employee sales representatives and independent sales representatives in the Company’s provisionUnited States and by a combination of employee sales representatives, independent sales representatives, and stocking distributors outside the United States. Revenues from sales to hospitals are recorded when the hospital takes title to the product, which is generally when the product is surgically implanted in a patient.
During the quarter ended December 27, 2015, following the Wright/Tornier merger, we changed our estimate of uninvoiced revenue. While we have generally recognized revenue at the time that the product was surgically implanted, from a timing perspective, we now recognize revenue at the time the surgery and associated products used are reported, as opposed to previously when we received clerical documentation from the hospital. We have accounted for income taxes.this as a change in estimate and recorded additional revenue of approximately $3 million in the quarter ended December 27, 2015.
We record revenues from sales to our stocking distributors outside the United States at the time the product is shipped to the distributor. Stocking distributors, who sell the products to their customers, take title to the products and assume all risks of ownership. Our distributors are obligated to pay within specified terms regardless of when, if ever, they sell the products. In general, the fiscaldistributors do not have any rights of return or exchange; however, in limited situations, we have repurchase agreements with certain stocking distributors. These repurchase agreements require us to repurchase a specified percentage of the inventory purchased by the distributor within a specified period of time prior to the expiration of the contract. During those specified periods, we defer the applicable percentage of the sales. An insignificant amount of deferred revenue related to these types of agreements was recorded at December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015.
We must make estimates of potential future product returns related to current period product revenue. We develop these estimates by analyzing historical experience related to product returns. Judgment must be used and estimates made in connection with establishing the allowance for sales returns in any accounting period. Our reserve for sales returns has historically been immaterial.
Shipping and handling costs. We incur shipping and handling costs associated with the shipment of goods to customers, independent distributors, and our subsidiaries. Amounts billed to customers for shipping and handling of products are included in net sales. Costs incurred related to shipping and handling of products to customers are included in selling, general and administrative expenses.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

All other shipping and handling costs are included in cost of sales. These amounts totaled $17.9 million, $9.8 million, and $7.6 million for the years ended December 29, 201325, 2016, December 27, 2015, and December 30, 2012, accrued interest31, 2014, respectively.
Research and penalties were $0.3 milliondevelopment costs. Research and $0.2 million, respectively.

Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Other comprehensive income (loss) refersdevelopment costs are charged to expense as incurred.

Foreign currency translation. The financial statements of our subsidiaries whose functional currency is the local currency are translated into U.S. dollars using the exchange rate at the balance sheet date for assets and liabilities and the weighted average exchange rate for the applicable period for revenues, expenses, gains, and losses. Translation adjustments are recorded as a separate component of comprehensive income in shareholders’ equity. Gains and losses that under U.S. GAAPresulting from transactions denominated in a currency other than the local functional currency are included in comprehensive income (loss) but are excluded from net earnings, as these amounts are recorded directly as an adjustment to shareholders’ equity. Other comprehensive income (loss) is comprised mainly of foreign currency translation adjustments and unrealized gains (losses) on retirement plans. These amounts are presented“Other (income) expense, net” in theour consolidated statements of operations.
Comprehensive income. Comprehensive income is defined as the change in equity during a period related to transactions and other events and circumstances from non-owner sources. It includes all changes in equity during a period except those resulting from investments by owners and distributions to owners. The difference between our net loss and our comprehensive loss.

loss is attributable to foreign currency translation.

Share-BasedShare-based compensation. Compensation

The Company accounts We account forshare-based compensation in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) TopicFASB ASC Section 718,Compensation Stock Compensation, which requires (FASB ASC 718). Under the fair value recognition provisions of FASB ASC 718, share-based compensation cost to beis measured at the grant date based on the fair value of the award and is recognized as expense on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period, which is the vesting period. The determination of the fair value ofshare-based payment awards, such as options, is made on the date of grant using anoption-pricing model is affected by the Company’s shareour stock price, as well as assumptions regarding a number of complex and subjective variables, which include the expected life of the award, the expected sharestock price volatility over the expected life of the award,awards, expected dividend yield, and risk-free interest rate.

New

We recorded share-based compensation expense of $14.4 million, $25.0 million, and $11.5 million during the years ended December 25, 2016, December 27, 2015, and December 31, 2014, respectively, within our results of continuing operations. The increase in expense in 2015 related to accelerated vesting of all unvested awards upon the closing of the Wright/Tornier merger. See Note 14 for further information regarding our share-based compensation assumptions and expenses.
Derivative instruments. We account for derivative instruments and hedging activities under FASB ASC Section 815, Derivatives and Hedging (FASB ASC 815). Accordingly, all of our derivative instruments are recorded in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as either an asset or liability and measured at fair value. The changes in the derivative’s fair value are recognized currently in earnings unless specific hedge accounting criteria are met.
We employ a derivative program using foreign currency forward contracts to mitigate the risk of currency fluctuations on our intercompany receivable and payable balances that are denominated in foreign currencies. These forward contracts are expected to offset the transactional gains and losses on the related intercompany balances. These forward contracts are not designated as hedging instruments under FASB ASC 815. Accordingly, the changes in the fair value and the settlement of the contracts are recognized in the period incurred in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
We recorded a net loss of approximately $0.8 million and $0.3 million on our foreign currency contracts for the years ended December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, and a net gain of approximately $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. These gains and losses substantially offset translation losses and gains recorded on our intercompany receivable and payable balances, and are also included in “Other (income) expense, net.” At December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, we had $0.4 million and $3.6 million in foreign currency contracts outstanding, respectively.
On August 31, 2012, February 13, 2015, and May 20, 2016, we issued the 2017 Notes, 2020 Notes, and 2021 Notes, respectively, as defined and described in Note 9. The 2017 Notes Conversion Derivatives, 2020 Notes Conversion Derivatives, and 2021 Notes Conversion Derivatives, each as defined and described in Note 6, requires bifurcation from the 2017 Notes, 2020 Notes, and 2021 Notes in accordance with ASC Topic 815, and are accounted for as derivative liabilities. We also entered into 2017, 2020, and 2021 Notes Hedges, as defined and described in Note 6, in connection with the issuance of the 2017, 2020, and 2021 Notes.  As of December 25, 2016, the 2020 and 2021 Notes Hedges were outstanding. The 2020 and 2021 Notes Hedges, which are cash-settled, are intended to reduce our exposure to potential cash payments that we are required to make upon conversion of the 2020 and 2021 Notes in excess of the principal amount of converted notes if our ordinary share price exceeds the conversion price. The 2020 and 2021 Notes Hedges are accounted for as derivative assets in accordance with ASC Topic 815. The 2017 Notes Hedges, as defined and described in Note 6, were fully settled in February 2015 when the 2020 Notes were issued.
Reclassifications. Certain prior period amounts in our consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to account for adoption of recent accounting guidance or to conform to the current period presentation.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

Supplemental cash flow information. Cash paid for interest and income taxes was as follows (in thousands):
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
Interest$18,678
 $11,198
 $6,518
Income taxes$4,334
 $1,051
 $1,525
Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Pronouncements. In June 2013,May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2013-11,Income Taxes (ASC Topic 740)ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, and has subsequently issued several supplemental and/or clarifying ASUs (collectively “ASC 606”). ASC 606 prescribes a single common revenue standard that replaces most existing U.S. GAAP revenue recognition guidance. ASC 606 outlines a five-step model, under which we will recognize revenue as performance obligations within a customer contract are satisfied. ASC 606 is intended to provide more consistent interpretation and application of the principles outlined in the standard across filers in multiple industries and within the same industries compared to current practices, which should improve comparability. Adoption of ASC 606 is required for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017 (fiscal year 2018 for Wright), including interim periods within the reporting period. Upon adoption, we must elect to adopt either retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented or using the cumulative effect transition method with the cumulative effect of initial adoption recognized at the date of initial application. We have not determined what transition method we will use. We are currently assessing the impact that the future adoption of ASC 606 may have on our consolidated financial statements by analyzing our current portfolio of customer contracts, including a review of historical accounting policies and practices to identify potential differences in applying the guidance of ASC 606. Based on our preliminary review of our customer contracts, we expect that revenue on the majority of our customer contracts will continue to be recognized at a point in time, generally upon surgical implantation or shipment of products to distributors, consistent with our current revenue recognition model.

On April 7, 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs, as part of its simplification initiative. The ASU changes the presentation of debt issuance costs in financial statements to present such costs in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the related debt liability rather than as an Unrecognized Tax Benefit Whenasset. Amortization of the costs is reported as interest expense. Further, on August 16, 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-15 Presentation and Subsequent Measurement of Debt Issuance Costs Associated With Line-of-Credit Arrangements to clarify the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff’s position on presenting and measuring debt issuance costs incurred in connection with line-of-credit arrangements given the lack of guidance on this topic in ASU 2015-03. The SEC staff has announced that it would not object to an entity deferring and presenting debt issuance costs as an asset and subsequently amortizing the deferred debt issuance costs ratably over the term of the line-of-credit arrangement. We adopted this guidance during the first quarter of 2016 on a Net Operating Loss Carryforward,retrospective basis. Accordingly, we reclassified debt issuance costs on our December 27, 2015 consolidated balance sheet, which decreased other assets and long-term debt by $16.2 million.
FASB ASU 2015-11 Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory was issued in July 2015. This requires entities to measure most inventory “at the lower of cost and net realizable value,” thereby simplifying the current guidance under which an entity must measure inventory at the lower of cost or market. The ASU will not apply to inventories that are measured by using either the last-in, first-out method or the retail inventory method. The ASU will be effective for us fiscal year 2017. The adoption of this ASU is not expected to have a Similar Tax Loss,material impact on our consolidated financial statements. 
On September 25, 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-16, Simplifying the Accounting for Measurement-Period Adjustments to simplify the accounting for measurement-period adjustments. The ASU, which is part of the FASB’s simplification initiative, was issued in response to stakeholder feedback that restatements of prior periods to reflect adjustments made to provisional amounts recognized in a business combination increase the cost and complexity of financial reporting but do not significantly improve the usefulness of the information. We adopted this ASU during fiscal year 2016. As detailed in Note 3, purchase price allocations for the Wright/Tornier merger are subject to adjustment during the measurement period. Under this ASU, an acquirer must recognize adjustments to provisional amounts that are identified during the measurement period in the reporting period in which the adjustment amounts are determined and must present these amounts separately on the face of the income statement or a Tax Credit Carryforward Existsdisclose in the notes, the portion of the amount recorded in current-period earnings by line item that would have been recorded in previous reporting periods if the adjustment to the provisional amounts had been recognized as of the acquisition date.
On November 20, 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-17, Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes, as part of its simplification initiative (i.e., the FASB's effort to reduce the cost and complexity of certain aspects of US GAAP). The ASU requires entities to present unrecognized tax benefits as a decrease in a net operating loss, similar to tax loss or tax credit carryforward if certain criteria are met. The standard clarifies presentation requirements for unrecognized tax benefits but will not alter the way in which entities assess deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities as noncurrent in a classified balance sheet. It thus simplifies the prior guidance, which required entities to separately present deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities as current or noncurrent in a classified

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

balance sheet. We elected to early adopt this guidance for realizability.the year ended December 27, 2015 and retrospectively applied this guidance to the 2014 tax balances. We noted that this change did not significantly impact our consolidated financial statements.
On February 25, 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases, which introduces a lessee model that brings most leases on the balance sheet. The new standard also aligns many of the underlying principles of the new lessor model with those in FASB ASC 606, the FASB’s new revenue recognition standard (e.g., those related to evaluating when profit can be recognized). Furthermore, the ASU addresses other concerns related to the current leases model. The ASU will be effective for us beginning in fiscal year 2019. We are in the initial phases of our adoption plans and; accordingly, we are unable to estimate any effect this may have on our consolidated financial statements.
On March 30, 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, which is to simplify accounting for income taxes, forfeitures, and withholding taxes, and reduce ambiguity in cash flow reporting. The ASU will be effective for us fiscal year 2017. We do not expect this change to significantly impact our consolidated financial statements.
On August 26, 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments, which amends the guidance in ASC 230 on the classification of certain cash receipts and payments in the statement of cash flows. The primary purpose of the ASU is to reduce the diversity in practice that has resulted from the lack of consistent principles on this topic. The ASU’s amendments add or clarify guidance on eight cash flow issues, including contingent consideration payments made after a business combination, and proceeds from the settlement of insurance claims. The guidance in the ASU is effective for us beginning in 2018 with early adoption permitted. We have elected to early adopt this guidance for the year ended December 25, 2016 and retrospectively applied this guidance to all periods presented. We noted that the application of this guidance did not impact the historical presentation of our statement of cash flows.
In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows: Restricted Cash, which amends ASC 230 to add or clarify guidance on the classification and presentation of restricted cash in the statement of cash flows. The amendments require that a statement of cash flows explain the change during the period in the total of cash, cash equivalents, and amounts generally described as restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents. Therefore, amounts generally described as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents should be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-18 is effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017. However, early adoption is permitted. We have elected to early adopt the methodology for presenting restricted cash resulting from the Escrow Agreement described in Note 17 for the year ended December 25, 2016.
3. Acquisitions and Disposition
Wright/Tornier Merger
On October 1, 2015, we completed the Wright/Tornier merger. Immediately upon completion of the merger, legacy Wright shareholders owned approximately 52% of the combined company and legacy Tornier shareholders owned approximately 48% of the combined company. Effective upon completion of the merger, we have operated under the leadership of the legacy Wright management team and our board of directors was comprised of five representatives from legacy Wright’s board of directors and five representatives from legacy Tornier’s board of directors. Because of these and other facts and circumstances, the merger was accounted for as a “reverse acquisition” under US GAAP. As such, legacy Wright was considered the acquiring entity for accounting purposes; and therefore, legacy Wright’s historical results of operations replaced legacy Tornier’s historical results of operations for all periods prior to the merger. As part of the merger, each legacy Wright share was converted into the right to receive 1.0309 ordinary shares of the combined company. The Wright/Tornier merger added legacy Tornier’s complementary extremities product portfolio to further accelerate growth opportunities in our global extremities business. The results of operations of both companies are included in our consolidated financial statements for all periods after completion of the merger.
The acquired business contributed net sales of $307.4 million and operating loss of $23.9 million to our consolidated results of operations for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, which includes $37.7 million of inventory step-up amortization and interim periods within that fiscal year, beginning after$16.8 million of intangible asset amortization. Additionally, the acquired business contributed net sales of $73.3 million and operating loss of $13.4 million to our consolidated results of operations from the date of acquisition through December 15, 2013. The Company will adopt this guidance beginning27, 2015, which includes $10.3 million of inventory step-up amortization and $4.0 million of intangible asset amortization. This operating loss does not include the merger-related transaction costs discussed below.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

Merger-Related Transaction Costs
In conjunction with the merger, we incurred approximately $20.1 million and $8.7 million of merger-related transaction costs in the first quarteryears ended December 27, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, all of 2014. which were recognized as selling, general and administrative expense in our consolidated statements of operations. These expenses primarily related to advisory fees, legal fees, and accounting and tax professional fees.
Purchase Consideration and Net Assets Acquired
The purchase consideration in a reverse acquisition is determined with reference to the value of equity that the accounting acquirer, legacy Wright, would have had to issue to the owners of the accounting acquiree, legacy Tornier, to give them the same percentage interest in the combined entity. The fair value of WMG common stock used in determining the purchase price was $21.02 per share, the closing price on September 30, 2015, which resulted in a total purchase consideration of $1.034 billion.
The calculation of the purchase consideration is as follows (in thousands):
Fair value of ordinary shares effectively transferred to Tornier shareholders$1,005,468
Fair value of ordinary shares effectively transferred to Tornier share award holders8,091
Fair value of ordinary shares effectively issued to Tornier stock option holders20,676
Fair value of total consideration$1,034,235
The acquisition was recorded by allocating the costs of the assets acquired based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date. The excess of the cost of the acquisition over the fair value of the assets acquired is recorded as goodwill. The fair values were based on management’s analysis, including work performed by third-party valuation specialists.
The following presents the allocation of the purchase consideration to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed on October 1, 2015 (in thousands):
Cash and cash equivalents$30,117
Accounts receivable63,797
Inventories138,659
Other current assets9,256
Property, plant and equipment, net122,927
Intangible assets, net213,600
Deferred income taxes1,399
Other assets8,658
Total assets acquired588,413
Current liabilities(101,623)
Long-term debt(79,554)
Deferred income taxes(31,878)
Other non-current liabilities(8,434)
Total liabilities assumed(221,489)
Net assets acquired$366,924
  
Goodwill667,311
  
Total preliminary purchase consideration$1,034,235
We made various changes to the purchase allocation during the measurement period. These changes were recorded in the reporting period in which the adjustment amounts were determined in accordance with ASU 2015-16.
During the three months ended March 27, 2016, we revised the opening balances of current liabilities and goodwill acquired as part of the Wright/Tornier merger by $0.6 million.
During the three months ended June 26, 2016, we revised the opening balances of intangible assets, accounts receivable, inventories, current liabilities, and goodwill acquired as part of the Wright/Tornier merger based on new information that existed as of the

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

acquisition date. As a result of the completion of the valuation of acquired intangible assets by our third-party valuation firm, we increased the opening balance of acquired intangible assets by $9.4 million, with a corresponding decrease to goodwill. This allocation adjustment resulted in an increase to amortization expense of $0.3 million for the six months ended June 26, 2016, of which $0.1 million related to each of the previous two quarters. We also revised the opening balance of acquired working capital accounts by a net decrease of $0.5 million, with a corresponding increase to goodwill.
During the three months ended September 25, 2016, as a result of the finalization of the valuation of acquired intangible assets by tax jurisdiction, we reduced the opening balance of deferred income taxes by $4.7 million, with a corresponding decrease to goodwill. This allocation adjustment resulted in a $0.4 million decrease to our income tax benefit for the nine months ended September 25, 2016. We revised the opening balance of property, plant, and equipment by $0.2 million with a corresponding increase to goodwill. The decrease in property, plant, and equipment resulted in an immaterial impact to depreciation expense. We also revised the opening balance of adoptionacquired working capital accounts by a net increase of $2.1 million, with a corresponding decrease to goodwill, primarily due to the completion of our assessment on inventory and current liabilities. The purchase price allocation is now considered final.
The acquisition was recorded by allocating the costs of the net assets acquired based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date. Trade receivables and payables, as well as certain other current and non-current assets and liabilities, were valued at the existing carrying values as they represented the fair value of those items at the acquisition date, based on management’s judgments and estimates. Trade receivables included gross contractual amounts of $73.9 million and our best estimate of $10.1 million which represents contractual cash flows not expected to be collected at the acquisition date.
Inventory was recorded at estimated selling price less costs of disposal and a reasonable selling profit. The resulting inventory step-up adjustment is being recognized in cost of sales as the related inventory is sold. The fair value of property, plant and equipment utilized a combination of the cost and market approaches, depending on the characteristics of the asset classification.
In determining the fair value of intangibles, we used an income method which is based on forecasts of the expected future cash flows attributable to the respective assets. Significant estimates and assumptions inherent in the valuations reflect a consideration of other marketplace participants and include the amount and timing of future cash flows (including expected growth rates and profitability), the underlying product or technology life cycles, the economic barriers to entry, and the discount rate applied to the cash flows.
Of the $213.6 million of acquired intangible assets, $99.9 million was assigned to customer relationships (20 year life), $89.5 million was assigned to developed technology (10 year life), $15.9 million was assigned to in-process research and development, and $8.3 million was assigned to trade names (2.6 year life).
The excess of the cost of the acquisition over the fair value of the net assets acquired is recorded as goodwill. The goodwill is primarily attributable to strategic opportunities that arose from the acquisition of Tornier. The goodwill is not expected to be material.

In March 2013,deductible for tax purposes.

The assets acquired in connection with the FASB issued ASU 2013-05,Foreign Currency Matters (ASC Topic 830)acquisition of Tornier and included in the above allocation of the purchase consideration include, among other assets, assets associated with legacy Tornier's Large Joints business. As described in more detail in Note 4, Parent’s Accountingon October 21, 2016, pursuant to a binding offer letter dated as of July 8, 2016, Tornier France SAS and certain other entities related to us and Corin entered into a business sale agreement and simultaneously completed and closed the sale of our Large Joints business. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we sold substantially all of our assets related to our Large Joints business to Corin for approximately €29.7 million in cash, less approximately €10.7 million for net working capital adjustments.
Pro Forma Combined Financial Information (Unaudited)
The following unaudited pro forma combined financial information (in thousands) summarizes the results of operations for the Cumulative Adjustment upon Derecognitionperiods indicated as if the Wright/Tornier merger had been completed as of Certain Subsidiaries or GroupsJanuary 1, 2014.
 Fiscal year ended
 
December 27, 2015 1
 December 31, 2014
Net sales$615,490
 $574,076
Net loss from continuing operations$(293,055) $(329,961)
___________________________
1
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The pro forma net loss for the year ended December 27, 2015 includes the following non-recurring items: $32.1 million of Assets within a Foreign Entity ormerger-related transaction expenses, $30.1 million of an Investment in a Foreign Entity.non-cash share-based compensation charges, and $5.5 million of contractual change-in-control severance charges. The ASU requires entities to release cumulative translationpro forma net loss for the year ended December 31, 2014 includes $12.4 million of non-recurring merger-related transaction expenses.
Pro forma information reflects adjustments to earnings when an entity ceasesthat are expected to have a controllingcontinuing impact on our results of operations and are directly attributable to the merger. The pro forma results include adjustments to reflect, among other things, the amortization of the inventory step-up, the incremental intangible asset amortization to be incurred based on the fair values of each identifiable intangible asset, and to eliminate interest expense related to legacy Tornier's former bank term debt and line of credit, which were repaid upon completion of the Wright/Tornier merger. The pro forma amounts do not purport to be indicative of the results that would have actually been obtained if the merger had occurred as of January 1, 2014 or that may be obtained in the future, and do not reflect future synergies, integration costs, or other such costs or savings.
Divestiture of Certain Legacy Tornier Ankle Replacement and Toe Assets
On October 1, 2015, simultaneous with the completion of the Wright/Tornier merger, we completed the divestiture of the U.S. rights to legacy Tornier's SALTO TALARIS® and SALTO TALARIS® XT™ line of ankle replacement products and line of silastic toe replacement products, among other assets, for cash. We retained the right to sell these products outside the United States for up to 20 years unless the purchaser exercises an option to purchase the ex-United States rights to the products. The completion of the asset divestiture was subject to and contingent upon the completion of the Wright/Tornier merger and we believe was necessary in order to obtain U.S. Federal Trade Commission approval of the Wright/Tornier merger. As these assets were not part of Wright/Tornier merger, they were not part of the purchase allocation. Additionally, the pro forma results exclude the divested operations as if the divestiture were to have occurred on January 1, 2014.
Solana Surgical, LLC
On January 30, 2014, we acquired 100% of the outstanding equity of Solana Surgical, LLC (Solana), a privately held Memphis, Tennessee orthopaedic company, for approximately $48.0 million in cash and $41.4 million of WMG common stock. The transaction added Solana's complementary extremity product portfolio to further accelerate growth opportunities in our global extremities business. The operating results from this acquisition are included in our consolidated financial intereststatements from the acquisition date.
The acquisition was recorded by allocating the costs of the assets acquired based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date. The excess of the cost of the acquisition over the fair value of the assets acquired was recorded as goodwill. The following is a summary of the estimated fair values of the assets acquired (in thousands):
Cash and cash equivalents $416
Accounts receivable 2,366
Inventories 2,244
Other current assets 372
Property, plant and equipment, net 360
Intangible assets, net 21,584
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (2,196)
Total net assets acquired $25,146
   
Goodwill 64,326
   
Total purchase consideration $89,472
The purchase price allocation was adjusted in the quarter ended June 30, 2014 for the finalization of the valuation of the acquired intangible assets. Intangible assets decreased $0.5 million during the quarter ended June 30, 2014. During the quarter ended September 30, 2014 the purchase price allocation was adjusted to record certain tax-related liabilities existing at the date of acquisition. Accrued liabilities increased $0.2 million during the quarter ended September 30, 2014. The purchase price allocation is now considered final.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The goodwill is primarily attributable to strategic opportunities that arose from the acquisition of Solana. The goodwill is deductible for tax purposes.
Of the $21.6 million of acquired intangible assets, $11.7 million was assigned to purchased technology (10 year life), $9.3 million was assigned to customer relationships (12 year life), and $0.6 million was assigned to trademarks (2 year life).
The acquired business contributed revenues of $14.3 million and operating income of $1.3 million, which excludes transaction and transition costs, to our consolidated results from the date of acquisition through December 31, 2014. Our consolidated results include $7.2 million of transaction and transition expenses recognized in the year ended December 31, 2014.
OrthoPro, L.L.C.
On February 5, 2014, we acquired 100% of the outstanding equity of OrthoPro L.L.C., a subsidiary or groupprivately held Salt Lake City, Utah orthopaedic company, for approximately $32.5 million in cash at closing, subject to a working capital adjustment, plus contingent consideration to be paid upon the achievement of certain revenue milestones in 2014 and 2015 (estimated fair value of contingent consideration is $0 as of December 31, 2014 and December 27, 2015). The transaction added OrthoPro's complementary extremity product portfolio to further accelerate growth opportunities in our global extremities business. The operating results from this acquisition are included in our consolidated financial statements from the acquisition date.
During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, we finalized the calculation of the acquisition date fair value of contingent consideration, which was reduced by $2.9 million at that time.
The acquisition was recorded by allocating the costs of the assets withinacquired based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date. The excess of the cost of the acquisition over the fair value of the assets acquired was recorded as goodwill. The following is a summary of the estimated fair values of the assets acquired (in thousands):
Cash and cash equivalents$98
Accounts receivable1,308
Inventories2,156
Prepaid and other current assets49
Property, plant and equipment1,801
Intangible assets7,772
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities(949)
Total net assets acquired$12,235
  
Goodwill20,801
  
Total purchase consideration$33,036
The purchase price allocation was adjusted in the quarter ended June 30, 2014 for the finalization of the valuation of acquired intangible assets. Intangible assets decreased $1.8 million during the quarter ended June 30, 2014. The purchase price allocation was adjusted in the quarter ended September 30, 2014 to record certain tax related liabilities that existed at the date of acquisition. Accrued liabilities increased $0.4 million during the quarter ended September 30, 2014. The purchase price allocation is now considered final.
The goodwill is primarily attributable to strategic opportunities that arose from the acquisition of OrthoPro. The goodwill is expected to be deductible for tax purposes.
Of the $7.8 million of acquired intangible assets, $4.2 million was assigned to customer relationships (12 year life), $3.4 million was assigned to purchased technology (10 year life), and $0.2 million was assigned to trademarks (2 year life).
The acquired business contributed revenues of $8.1 million and operating income of $0.5 million, which excludes transaction and transition costs, to our consolidated foreign entityresults from the date of acquisition through December 31, 2014. Our consolidated results include $5.1 million of transaction and transition expenses recognized in the year ended December 31, 2014.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

4. Discontinued Operations
For the years ended December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, our loss from discontinued operations, net of tax, totaled $267.4 million and $61.3 million and was attributable to the divestiture of the Large Joints Business and the OrthoRecon Business.  For the year ended December 31, 2014, our loss from discontinued operations, net of tax, totaled $19.2 million and was attributable to the OrthoRecon Business.  The basic and diluted weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding was 103.0 million, 64.8 million and 51.3 million for 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively.  The basic and diluted net loss from discontinued operations per share was $2.60, $0.95 and $0.37 for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. 
Large Joints Business
On October 21, 2016, pursuant to a binding offer letter dated as of July 8, 2016, Tornier France, Corin, and certain other entities related to us and Corin entered into a business sale or transferagreement and simultaneously completed and closed the sale of our Large Joints business. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we sold substantially all of the assets related to our Large Joints business to Corin for approximately €29.7 million in cash, less approximately €10.7 million for net working capital adjustments. Upon closing, the parties also executed a transitional services agreement and supply agreement, among other ancillary agreements required to implement the transaction. These agreements are on arm’s length terms and are not expected to be material to our consolidated financial statements.
All historical operating results for the Large Joints business, including costs associated with corporate employees and infrastructure transferred as a part of the sale, are reflected within discontinued operations in the complete or substantially complete liquidationconsolidated statements of operations. Further, all assets and associated liabilities transferred to Corin were classified as assets and liabilities held for sale in our consolidated balance sheet for the year ended December 27, 2015. We recognized an impairment loss on assets held for sale of $21.3 million, before the effect of income taxes during 2016, based on the difference between the net carrying value of the foreign entity. assets and liabilities held for sale and the purchase price, less estimated adjustments and costs to sell. This loss was recorded within "Net loss from discontinued operations" in our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 25, 2016.
The ASU is effectivefollowing table summarizes the results of discontinued operations for the Large Joints business (in thousands, except per share data):
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Net sales$35,318
 $10,135
Cost of sales20,244
 5,633
Selling, general and administrative18,808
 5,021
Other
 684
Loss from discontinued operations before income taxes(3,734) (1,203)
Impairment loss on assets held for sale, before income taxes21,342
 
Total loss from discontinued operations before income taxes(25,076) (1,203)
Benefit for income taxes5,615
 199
Total loss from discontinued operations, net of tax$(19,461) $(1,004)
    
Net loss from discontinued operations per share-basic and diluted (Note 13) 1
$(0.19) $(0.02)
    
Weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding-basic and diluted (Note 13) 1
102,968
 64,808
1
The prior period weighted-average shares outstanding and net loss per share amounts were converted to meet post-merger valuations as described within Note 13.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The following table summarizes the assets and liabilities held for sale (in thousands):
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Assets:   
Inventories, net$
 $18,408
Prepaid expenses
 79
Property, plant and equipment, net
 16,513
Goodwill
 9,355
Intangible assets, net
 5,815
Total assets held for sale$
 $50,170
    
Liabilities:   
Other current liabilities$
 $2,692
Total liabilities held for sale$
 $2,692
Cash provided by operating activities and investing activities from the Large Joints business totaled $5.2 million and $20.7 million for the year ended December 25, 2016, respectively. Cash provided by operating activities from the Large Joints business totaled $2.9 million for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2015.
OrthoRecon Business
On January 9, 2014, legacy Wright completed the divestiture and interim periods within that fiscal year, beginning after December 15, 2013 and issale of its OrthoRecon business to be applied prospectively. The Company will adopt this guidanceMicroPort Scientific Corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement with MicroPort, the purchase price (as defined in the first quarter of 2014 and will affect the accounting for any future liquidation of foreign subsidiaries.

In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-04,Liabilities (ASC Topic 405)agreement) was approximately $283 million (including a working capital adjustment), Obligations Resulting from Joint and Several Liability Arrangements for Which the Total Amountwhich MicroPort paid in cash. As a result of the Obligation is Fixed at the Reporting Date.The ASU requires an entity that is jointly and severally liable to measure the obligationtransaction, we recognized approximately $24.3 million as the sumgain on disposal of the amountOrthoRecon business, before the entity has agreedeffect of income taxes.

All current and historical operating results for the OrthoRecon business are reflected within discontinued operations in the consolidated financial statements. The following table summarizes the results of discontinued operations for the OrthoRecon business (in thousands, except per share data):
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
Net sales$
 $
 $3,056
Selling, general and administrative247,978
 60,341
 16,577
Loss from discontinued operations before income taxes(247,978) (60,341) (13,521)
Provision for income taxes
 
 5,666
Total loss from discontinued operations, net of tax$(247,978) $(60,341) $(19,187)
      
Net loss from discontinued operations per share-basic and diluted (Note 13) 1
$(2.41) $(0.93) $(0.37)
      
Weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding-basic and diluted (Note 13) 1
102,968
 64,808
 51,293
1
The prior period weighted-average shares outstanding and net loss per share amounts were converted to meet post-merger valuations as described within Note 13.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

Certain liabilities associated with co-obligorsthe OrthoRecon business, including product liability claims associated with hip and knee products sold by legacy Wright prior to paythe closing, were not assumed by MicroPort. Charges associated with these product liability claims, including legal defense, settlements and judgments, income associated with product liability insurance recoveries, and changes to any additional amount it expectscontingent liabilities associated with the OrthoRecon business have been reflected within results of discontinued operations, and we will continue to pay on behalfreflect these within results of one or more co-obligors. The amendment is effective fordiscontinued operations in future periods.
During the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, we recognized a $196.6 million charge, net of insurance proceeds, within discontinued operations related to the retained metal-on-metal product liability claims associated with the OrthoRecon business (see Note 16 for additional discussion). We will incur continuing cash outflows associated with legal defense costs and interim periods with thatthe ultimate resolution of these contingent liabilities until these liabilities are resolved.
During the fiscal year beginning afterended December 15, 2013 and should be applied retrospectively. The Company will adopt this guidance27, 2015, we recognized a $25 million charge to write down an insurance receivable associated with product liability claims. Additionally, during 2015, we increased our estimated product liability by approximately $4 million for claims that had been incurred in prior periods. We have analyzed the first quarter of 2014. The impact of adoption is expectedthis adjustment and determined that this out-of-period charge did not have a material impact to be immaterial.

3.the prior period financial statements. See Note 16 for additional information regarding our product liabilities and the associated insurance.

The 2014 effective tax rate within the results of discontinued operations reflects the sale of non-deductible goodwill of $25.8 million associated with the OrthoRecon business.
Cash provided by operating activities from the OrthoRecon business totaled $16.7 million for the year ended December 25, 2016 primarily due to the receipt of the $60 million insurance settlement, offset by legal defense costs and settlement of product liabilities. See further discussion in Note 16. Cash used in operating activities from the OrthoRecon business for the year ended December 27, 2015 was $28 million associated with legal defense costs and settlement of product liabilities, net of insurance proceeds received. During 2014, cash provided by the OrthoRecon business was approximately $250.5 million driven by the cash received from the sale of the OrthoRecon business.
5. Inventories
Inventories consist of the following (in thousands):
 December 25, 2016 
December 27, 2015 1
Raw materials$15,319
 $18,057
Work-in-process22,422
 27,946
Finished goods113,108
 164,698
 $150,849
 $210,701
___________________________
1
The prior period amounts have been adjusted to reflect balances associated with our Large Joints business, as these amounts were classified as held for sale at December 27, 2015
Finished goods inventories held as of December 27, 2015 include an inventory fair value step-up of $37.7 million which was fully amortized during 2016.

6. Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The Company measures certain assets and liabilitiesDerivatives

We account for derivatives in accordance with FASB ASC 815, which establishes accounting and reporting standards requiring that derivative instruments be recorded on the balance sheet as either an asset or liability measured at fair value on a recurring or non-recurring basis based onvalue. Additionally, changes in the application of ASC Topic 820, which establishes a framework for measuringderivatives' fair value are recognized currently in earnings unless specific hedge accounting criteria are met.
FASB ASC Section 820, Fair Value Measurements and clarifies the definition of fair value within that framework. ThisDisclosures requires fair value measurements to be classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:

Level 1—Assets

Level 1:Financial instruments with unadjusted, quoted prices listed on active market exchanges.
Level 2:Financial instruments determined using prices for recently traded financial instruments with similar underlying terms as well as directly or indirectly observable inputs, such as interest rates and yield curves that are observable at commonly quoted intervals.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

Level 3:Financial instruments that are not actively traded on a market exchange. This category includes situations where there is little, if any, market activity for the financial instrument. The prices are determined using significant unobservable inputs or valuation techniques.
2021 Conversion Derivative and liabilitiesNotes Hedging
On May 20, 2016, we issued $395 million aggregate principal amount of 2.25% cash convertible senior notes due 2021 (the 2021 Notes). See Note 9 of the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the 2021 Notes. The 2021 Notes have a conversion derivative feature (2021 Notes Conversion Derivative) that requires bifurcation from the 2021 Notes in accordance with unadjusted, quoted prices listed on active market exchanges.

Level 2—AssetsASC Topic 815, and liabilities determined using pricesis accounted for recently traded assets and liabilities with similar underlying terms, as well as directly or indirectly observable inputs, such as interest rates and yield curves that are observable at commonly quoted intervals.

Level 3—Assets and liabilities that are not actively traded on a market exchange. This category includes situations where there is little, if any, market activity for the asset orderivative liability. The prices are determined using significant unobservable inputs or valuation techniques.

A summaryfair value of the financial assets2021 Notes Conversion Derivative at the time of issuance of the 2021 Notes was $117.2 million.

In connection with the issuance of the 2021 Notes, we entered into hedges (2021 Notes Hedges) with two option counterparties. The 2021 Notes Hedges, which are cash-settled, are generally intended to reduce our exposure to potential cash payments that we are required to make upon conversion of the 2021 Notes in excess of the principal amount of converted notes if our ordinary share price exceeds the conversion price. The aggregate cost of the 2021 Notes Hedges was $99.8 million and liabilities thatis accounted for as a derivative asset in accordance with ASC Topic 815. However, in connection with certain events, these option counterparties have the discretion to make certain adjustments to the 2021 Note Hedges, which may reduce the effectiveness of the 2021 Note Hedges.
The following table summarizes the fair value and the presentation in the consolidated balance sheet (in thousands) of the 2021 Notes Hedges and 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative:
 Location on consolidated balance sheetDecember 25, 2016
2021 Notes HedgesOther assets$159,095
2021 Notes Conversion DerivativeOther liabilities$161,601
The 2021 Notes Hedges and the 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative are measured at fair value using Level 3 inputs. These instruments are not actively traded and are valued using an option pricing model that uses observable and unobservable market data for inputs.
Neither the 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative nor the 2021 Notes Hedges qualify for hedge accounting; thus, any change in the fair value of the derivatives is recognized immediately in the consolidated statements of operations.
The following table summarizes the net gain on changes in fair value (in thousands) related to the 2021 Notes Hedges and 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative:
 Fiscal year ended December 25, 2016
2021 Notes Hedges$59,278
2021 Notes Conversion Derivative(44,377)
Net gain on changes in fair value$14,901
2020 Conversion Derivative and Notes Hedging
On February 13, 2015, WMG issued $632.5 million aggregate principal amount of 2.00% cash convertible senior notes due 2020 (the 2020 Notes). See Note 9 of the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the 2020 Notes. The 2020 Notes have a recurring basisconversion derivative feature (2020 Notes Conversion Derivative) that requires bifurcation from the 2020 Notes in accordance with ASC Topic 815, and is accounted for as a derivative liability. The fair value of the 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative at December 29, 2013the time of issuance of the 2020 Notes was $149.8 million.
In connection with the issuance of the 2020 Notes, WMG entered into hedges (2020 Notes Hedges) with three option counterparties. The 2020 Notes Hedges, which are cash-settled, are generally intended to reduce WMG's exposure to potential cash payments that WMG is required to make upon conversion of the 2020 Notes in excess of the principal amount of converted notes if our ordinary share price exceeds the conversion price. The aggregate cost of the 2020 Notes Hedges was $144.8 million and December 30, 2012 areis accounted for as follows:

   December 29, 2013  Quoted Prices in
Active Markets
(Level 1)
   Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
   Significant
Unobservable
Inputs (Level 3)
 

Cash and cash equivalents

  $56,784   $56,784    $—      $—    

Contingent consideration

   (12,956  —       —       (12,956

Derivative asset

   238    —       238     —    
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total, net

  $44,066   $56,784    $238    $(12,956
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

   December 30, 2012  Quoted Prices in
Active Markets
(Level 1)
   Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
   Significant
Unobservable
Inputs (Level 3)
 

Cash and cash equivalents

  $31,108   $31,108    $—      $—    

Contingent consideration

   (15,265  —       —       (15,265

Derivative asset

   274    —       274     —    
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total, net

  $16,117   $31,108    $274    $(15,265
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

As of December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012 the Company had a derivative asset in accordance with a fair valueASC Topic 815. However, in connection with certain events, these option counterparties have the discretion to make certain adjustments to the 2020 Note Hedges, which may reduce the effectiveness of $0.2the 2020 Note Hedges.


WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

Concurrently with the issuance and sale of the 2021 Notes, certain holders of the 2020 Notes exchanged approximately $45 million and $0.3 million, respectively, with recurring Level 2 fair value measurements. The derivatives are foreign exchange forward contracts and their fair values are based on pricing for similar recently executed transactions. Theaggregate principal amount of gain (loss) recognized in foreign exchange loss2020 Notes (including the 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative) for the year ended December 29, 20132021 Notes. For each $1,000 principal amount of 2020 Notes validly submitted for exchange, we delivered $990 principal amount of the 2021 Notes (subject, in each case, to rounding down to the nearest $1,000 principal amount of the 2021 Notes, the difference being referred as the rounded amount) to the investor plus an amount of cash equal to the unpaid interest on the 2020 Notes and December 30, 2012 related to this derivative isthe rounded amount at an aggregate cost of approximately $44.6 million. We settled the associated portion of the 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative at a benefit of approximately $0.4 million and $0.3 million, respectively. Includedsatisfied the accrued interest, which was not material.
In addition, during the second quarter of 2016, we settled a portion of the 2020 Notes Hedges (receiving $3.9 million) and repurchased a portion of the warrants associated with the 2020 Notes (paying $3.3 million), generating net proceeds of approximately $0.6 million.
The following table summarizes the fair value and the presentation in the consolidated balance sheet (in thousands) of the 2020 Notes Hedges and 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative:
 Location on consolidated balance sheetDecember 25, 2016December 27, 2015
2020 Notes HedgesOther assets$77,232
$127,758
2020 Notes Conversion DerivativeOther liabilities$77,758
$129,107
The 2020 Notes Hedges and the 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative are measured at fair value using Level 3 inputs. These instruments are not actively traded and are valued using an option pricing model that uses observable and unobservable market data for inputs.
Neither the 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative nor the 2020 Notes Hedges qualify for hedge accounting; thus, any change in the fair value measurementsof the derivatives is recognized immediately in the consolidated statements of operations.
The following table summarizes the net gain on changes in fair value (in thousands) related to the 2020 Notes Hedges and 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative:
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016December 27, 2015
2020 Notes Hedges$(46,634)$(17,085)
2020 Notes Conversion Derivative51,799
20,677
Net gain on changes in fair value$5,165
$3,592
2017 Conversion Derivative and Notes Hedging
On August 31, 2012, WMG issued $300 million aggregate principal amount of 2.00% cash convertible senior notes due 2017 (the 2017 Notes). See Note 9 of the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the 2017 Notes. The 2017 Notes have a conversion derivative feature (2017 Notes Conversion Derivative) that requires bifurcation from the 2017 Notes in accordance with ASC Topic 815, and is accounted for as a derivative liability. The fair value of the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative at the time of issuance of the 2017 Notes was $48.1 million.
In connection with the issuance of the 2017 Notes, WMG entered into hedges (2017 Notes Hedges) with three option counterparties. The aggregate cost of the 2017 Notes Hedges was $56.2 million and was accounted for as a derivative asset in accordance with ASC Topic 815.
In connection with the issuance of the 2020 Notes, WMG used approximately $292 million of the 2020 Notes' net proceeds to repurchase and extinguish approximately $240 million aggregate principal amount of the 2017 Notes, settle the associated portion of the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative at a cost of approximately $49 million, and satisfy the accrued interest of $2.4 million. WMG also settled all of the 2017 Notes Hedges (receiving $70 million) and repurchased all of the warrants associated with the 2017 Notes (paying $60 million), generating net proceeds of approximately $10 million.
Concurrently with the issuance and sale of the 2021 Notes, certain holders of the 2017 Notes exchanged approximately $54.4 million aggregate principal amount of 2017 Notes (including the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative) for the 2021 Notes. For each $1,000 principal amount of 2017 Notes validly submitted for exchange, we delivered $1,035.40 principal amount of the 2021 Notes (subject, in each case, to rounding down to the nearest $1,000 principal amount of the 2021 Notes, the difference being

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

referred as the rounded amount) to the investor plus an amount of cash equal to the unpaid interest on the 2017 Notes and the rounded amount at a cost of approximately $56.3 million. We settled the associated portion of the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative at a cost of approximately $1.9 million and satisfied the accrued interest, which was not material.
In addition, during the second quarter of 2016, we repurchased and extinguished an additional $3.6 million aggregate principal amount of the 2017 Notes in privately negotiated transactions and settled the associated portion of the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative at a cost of approximately $0.1 million, and satisfied the accrued interest, which was not material.
The following table summarizes the fair value and the presentation in the consolidated balance sheet (in thousands) of the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative:
 Location on consolidated balance sheetDecember 25, 2016December 27, 2015
2017 Notes Conversion DerivativeOther liabilities$164
$10,440
The 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative is measured at fair value using Level 3 inputs. This instrument is not actively traded and is valued using an option pricing model that uses observable and unobservable market data for inputs.
Neither the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative nor the 2017 Notes Hedges qualify for hedge accounting; thus, any change in the fair value of the derivatives is recognized immediately in the consolidated statements of operations.
The following table summarizes the net gain on changes in fair value (in thousands) related to the 2017 Notes Hedges and 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative:
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016December 27, 2015
2017 Notes Hedges$
$(10,236)
2017 Notes Conversion Derivative8,207
16,408
Net gain on changes in fair value$8,207
$6,172
To determine the fair value of the embedded conversion option in the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative, 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative, and 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative, a trinomial lattice model was used. A trinomial stock price lattice model generates three possible outcomes of stock price - one up, one down, and one stable. This lattice generates a distribution of stock prices at the maturity date and throughout the life of the 2017 Notes, 2020 Notes, and 2021 Notes. Using this stock price lattice, a convertible note lattice was created where the value of the embedded conversion option was estimated by comparing the value produced in a convertible note lattice with the option to convert against the value without the ability to convert. In each case, the convertible note lattice first calculates the possible convertible note values at the maturity date, using the distribution of stock prices, which equals to the maximum of (x) the remaining bond cash flows and (y) stock price times the conversion price. The values of the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative, 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative, and 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative at the valuation date were estimated using the values at the maturity date and moving back in time on the lattices (both for the lattice with the conversion option and without the conversion option). Specifically, at each node, if the 2017 Notes, 2020 Notes, or 2021 Notes are eligible for early conversion, the value at this node is the maximum of (i) converting to stock, which is the stock price times the conversion price, and (ii) holding onto the 2017 Notes, 2020 Notes, and 2021 Notes, which is the discounted and probability-weighted value from the three possible outcomes at the future nodes plus any accrued but unpaid coupons that are not considered at the future nodes. If the 2017 Notes, 2020 Notes, or 2021 Notes are not eligible for early conversion, the value of the conversion option at this node equals to (ii). In the lattice, a credit adjustment was applied to the discount for each cash flow in the model as the embedded conversion option, as well as the coupon and notional payments, is settled with cash instead of shares.
To estimate the fair value of the 2020 Notes Hedges and 2021 Notes Hedges, we used the Black-Scholes formula combined with credit adjustments, as the option counterparties have credit risk and the call options are cash settled. We assumed that the call options will be exercised at the maturity since our ordinary shares do not pay any dividends and management does not expect to declare dividends in the near term.
The following assumptions were used in the fair market valuations of the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative, 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative, 2020 Notes Hedge, 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative, and 2021 Notes Hedge as of December 29, 201325, 2016:

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative2020 Notes Conversion Derivative
2020 Notes
Hedge
2021 Notes Conversion Derivative2021 Notes
Hedge
Stock Price Volatility 1
34.94%34.81%34.81%36.76%36.76%
Credit Spread for Wright 2
6.00%3.03%N/A3.80%N/A
Credit Spread for Deutsche Bank AG 3
N/AN/A1.41%N/AN/A
Credit Spread for Wells Fargo Securities, LLC 3
N/AN/A0.30%N/AN/A
Credit Spread for JPMorgan Chase Bank 3
N/AN/A0.44%N/A0.75%
Credit Spread for Bank of America 3
N/AN/AN/AN/A0.65%
1
Volatility selected based on historical and implied volatility of ordinary shares of Wright Medical Group N.V.
2
Credit spread implied from traded price.
3
Credit spread of each bank is estimated using CDS curves. Source: Bloomberg.
The fair value of our notes conversion derivatives is determined using a $10.4 million contingent consideration liability related to potential earnout paymentstrinomial lattice model and is classified in Level 3. We used a stock price volatility, which is one of the most significant assumptions, of 34.94%, 34.81%, and 36.76% in calculating the fair value of our 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative, 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative, and 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative, respectively, as of December 25, 2016. The change in the fair value resulting from a change in the stock price volatility would have a direct impact on net profit, with an increase in volatility resulting in an increase in the net loss and a decrease in volatility resulting in a decrease in the net loss for the acquisition of OrthoHelixperiod.
The following table depicts the impact that was completed in October 2012, a $1.9 million contingent consideration liability related to earn-out payments for distributor acquisitions10% change in the United States that occurred throughout 2013, a $0.5 million contingent consideration liability related to potential earnout paymentsstock price volatility would have on the fair value of the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative, 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative, and 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative (in thousands except for percentages):
 Stock price volatilityFair value at December 25, 2016Fair value with 10% decrease in stock price volatilityFair value with 10% increase in stock price volatility
2017 Notes Conversion Derivative34.94%$164
$103
$226
2020 Notes Conversion Derivative34.81%$77,758
$45,616
$110,119
2021 Notes Conversion Derivative36.76%$161,601
$129,991
$192,664
The fair value of our notes hedges is determined using the Black-Scholes formula combined with credit adjustments and is classified in Level 3. The stock price volatility as of December 25, 2016 was 34.81% and 36.76% for the acquisition2020 Notes Hedges and 2021 Notes Hedges, respectively. A significant change in the stock price volatility price would result in a significant change in the fair value. We used a stock price volatility, which is one of the Company’s exclusive distributormost significant assumptions, of 34.81% and 36.76% in Belgiumcalculating the fair value of the 2020 Notes Hedges and Luxembourg that was completed2021 Notes Hedges, respectively, as of December 25, 2016. The change in May 2012the fair value resulting from a change in the stock price volatility would have a direct impact on net profit, with an increase in volatility resulting in a decrease in the net loss and a $0.2 million contingent consideration liabilitydecrease in volatility resulting in an increase in the net loss for the period. The impact on profit would be offset due to volatility of notes hedges by a similar change in volatility of the notes conversion derivatives.
The following table depicts the impact that a 10% change in the stock price volatility would have on the fair value of the 2020 Notes Hedges and 2021 Notes Hedges (in thousands except for percentages):
 Stock price volatilityFair value at December 25, 2016Fair value with 10% decrease in stock price volatilityFair value with 10% increase in stock price volatility
2020 Notes Hedges34.81%$77,232
$46,017
$108,566
2021 Notes Hedges36.76%$159,095
$128,733
$188,581
Derivatives not Designated as Hedging Instruments

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

We employ a derivative program using foreign currency forward contracts to mitigate the risk of currency fluctuations on our intercompany receivable and payable balances that are denominated in foreign currencies. These forward contracts are expected to offset the transactional gains and losses on the related to

potential earnout payments related tointercompany balances. These forward contracts are not designated as hedging instruments under FASB ASC Topic 815. Accordingly, the acquisition of a distributorchanges in Australia. Contingent consideration liabilities are carried atthe fair value and includedthe settlement of the contracts are recognized in the period incurred in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. At December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, we had $0.4 million and $3.6 million in foreign currency contracts outstanding, respectively.

Financial Instruments
As part of our acquisition of WG Healthcare on January 7, 2013, we may be obligated to pay contingent consideration (short term and long term) onupon the consolidated balance sheet. Theachievement of certain revenue milestones; therefore, we have recorded the estimated fair value of future contingent consideration liabilities were determined based on discounted cash flow analyses that included revenue estimatesof approximately $0.4 million and a discount rate, which are considered significant unobservable inputs$0.6 million as of December 29, 2013. The revenue estimates were based on current management expectations for these businesses25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, respectively.
As a result of the discount rate used was between 8-11%acquired sales and was based on the Company’s estimated weighted average costdistribution business of capital for each transaction. To the extent that these assumptions were to change, theSurgical Specialties Australia Pty. Ltd in 2015, we recorded contingent consideration of approximately $1.7 million and $1.5 million as of December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, respectively.
The fair value of the contingent consideration liabilities could change significantly. Included in interest expense on the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 29, 2013 is $1.1 million related to the accretion of the contingent consideration. There were no transfers between levels during the year ended December 29, 2013.

Included in Level 3 fair value measurements as of December 30, 2012 is a $14.5 million contingent consideration liability related to potential earn-out payments for the acquisition of OrthoHelix25, 2016 and a $0.7 million contingent consideration liability related to potential earn-out payments for the acquisition of the Company’s exclusive distributor in Belgium and Luxembourg. The contingent consideration liabilities are carried at fair value, which is determined based on a discounted cash flow analysis that included revenue estimates and a discount rate, which are considered significant unobservable inputs as of December 30, 2012. The revenue estimates were based on then current management expectations for these businesses and the discount rate used as of December 30, 2012 was 8% and was based on the Company’s estimated weighted average cost of capital. Included in interest expense on the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 30, 2012 is $0.3 million related to the accretion of the contingent consideration. There were no transfers between levels during the year ended December 30, 2012.

A rollforward of the level 3 contingent liability for the year ended December 29, 2013 is as follows (in thousands):

Contingent consideration liability at December 30, 2012

$ 15,265

Additions

3,329

Fair value adjustments

(5,140

Settlements

(1,640

Interest accretion

1,132

Foreign currency translation

10

Contingent consideration at December 29, 2013

12,956

The Company also has assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis. The Company reviews the carrying amount of its long-lived assets other than goodwill for potential impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying values may not be recoverable. During the year ended December 30, 2012, the Company recognized an intangible impairment of $4.7 million. The impairment27, 2015 was determined using a discounted cash flow analysis. Key inputs intomodel and probability adjusted estimates of the analysis included estimated future revenuesearnings and expenses and a discount rate.is classified in Level 3. The 2016 discount rate of 8% was based on the Company’s weighted average cost of capital. These inputs are considered to be significant unobservable inputsis 12% for WG Healthcare and are considered Level 3 fair value measurements. No intangible impairments were recorded14% for the year ended December 29, 2013.

During the year ended December 30, 2012, the Company initiated and completed a facilities consolidation initiative that included the closure and consolidation of certain facilities in France, Ireland and the United States, which resultedSurgical Specialties Australia Pty. Ltd. A change in the recognition of a $0.9 million impairment charge to write down certain fixed assets to their estimated fair values. The fair value calculations were performed using a cost-to-sell analysis and are considered Level 2 fair value measurements as the key inputs into the calculations included estimated market values of the facilities, which are considered indirect observable inputs. In addition, the Company recorded $0.7 million of lease termination costs for the year ended December 30, 2012 related to the facilities consolidation initiative. The termination costs were determined using a discounted cash flow analysis that included a discount rate assumption, which is basedwould have limited impact on our profits or the credit adjusted risk free interest rate input, and an assumption related to the timing and amount of sublease income. The timing of the sublease income is a significant unobservable input and thus is considered a Level 3 fair value measurement. As of December 29, 2013, the value of this liabilitycontingent consideration. Changes in the fair value of contingent consideration are recorded in “Other expense (income), net” in our consolidated statements of operations.

On March 1, 2013, as part of our acquisition of BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. (BioMimetic), we issued Contingent Value Rights (CVRs) as part of the merger consideration. Each CVR entitles its holder to receive additional cash payments of up to $6.50 per share, which are payable upon receipt of FDA approval of AUGMENT® Bone Graft and upon achieving certain revenue milestones. On September 1, 2015, AUGMENT® Bone Graft received FDA approval and the first of the milestone payments associated with the CVRs was approximately $0.4paid out at $3.50 per share, which totaled $98.1 million.

As of December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, the Company had short-term and long-term debt of $69.1 million and $120.1 million, respectively, the vast majority of which was variable rate debt. The fair value of the Company’s debt obligations approximatesCVRs outstanding at December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015 was $37 million and $28 million, respectively, and was determined using the closing price of the security in the active market (Level 1). For the years ended December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, the change in the value of the CVRs resulted in expense of $8.7 million and income of $7.6 million, respectively, which was recorded in "Other expense (income), net" in our consolidated statements of operations. If, prior to March 1, 2019, sales of AUGMENT® Bone Graft reach $40 million over 12 consecutive months, cash payment would be required at $1.50 per share, or $42 million. Further, if, prior to March 1, 2019, sales of AUGMENT® Bone Graft reach $70 million over 12 consecutive months, an additional cash payment would be required at $1.50 per share, or $42 million.

The carrying value as a result of its variable rate termcash and would be considered a Level 2 measurement.

4. Business Combinations

On October 4, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition of 100% of the outstanding common stock of OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc which further expanded the Company’s lower extremity jointscash equivalents, accounts receivable, and trauma product portfolio. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company acquired the assets and assumed certain liabilities of OrthoHelix for an aggregate purchase price of $152.6 million, including $100.4 million in cash, the equivalent of $38.0 million in Tornier ordinary shares based on the closing share price on the date of acquisition, and $14.2 million related toaccounts payable approximates the fair value of additional contingent considerationthese financial instruments at December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015 due to their short maturities and variable rates.

The following table summarizes the valuation of up to $20.0 million. our financial instruments (in thousands):
 Total
Quoted prices
in active
markets
(Level 1)
Prices with
other
observable
inputs
(Level 2)
Prices with
unobservable
inputs
(Level 3)
At December 25, 2016    
Assets    
Cash and cash equivalents$262,265
$262,265
$
$
Restricted cash150,000
150,000


2020 Notes Hedges77,232


77,232
2021 Notes Hedges159,095


159,095
Total$648,592
$412,265
$
$236,327
     
Liabilities    
2017 Notes Conversion Derivative$164
$
$
$164
2020 Notes Conversion Derivative77,758


77,758
2021 Notes Conversion Derivative161,601


161,601
Contingent consideration2,249


2,249
Contingent consideration (CVRs)36,999
36,999


Total$278,771
$36,999
$
$241,772

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

 Total
Quoted prices
in active
markets
(Level 1)
Prices with
other
observable
inputs
(Level 2)
Prices with
unobservable
inputs
(Level 3)
At December 27, 2015    
Assets    
Cash and cash equivalents$139,804
$139,804
$
$
2020 Notes Hedges127,758


127,758
Total$267,562
$139,804
$
$127,758
     
Liabilities    
2017 Notes Conversion Derivative$10,440
$
$
$10,440
2020 Notes Conversion Derivative129,107


129,107
Contingent consideration2,340


2,340
Contingent consideration (CVRs)28,310
28,310


Total$170,197
$28,310
$
$141,887
The contingent considerationfollowing is payable in future periods baseda roll forward of our assets and liabilities measured at fair value (in thousands) on growtha recurring basis using unobservable inputs (Level 3):
  Balance at December 27, 2015AdditionsTransfers into Level 3Gain/(loss) included in earningsSettlementsCurrencyBalance at December 25, 2016
         
2017 Notes Conversion Derivative $(10,440)$
$
$8,207
$2,069
$
$(164)
2020 Notes Hedges 127,758


(46,634)(3,892)
77,232
2020 Notes Conversion Derivative (129,107)

51,799
(450)
(77,758)
2021 Notes Hedges 
99,817

59,278


159,095
2021 Notes Conversion Derivative 
(117,224)
(44,377)

(161,601)
Contingent consideration (2,340)(477)
(592)1,035
125
(2,249)

7. Property, Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment, net consists of the lower extremity jointsfollowing (in thousands):
 December 25, 2016 
December 27, 2015 1
Land and land improvements$1,952
 $1,986
Buildings40,570
 36,746
Machinery and equipment45,141
 38,003
Furniture, fixtures and office equipment125,844
 98,521
Construction in progress7,058
 21,505
Surgical instruments147,713
 134,655
 368,278
 331,416
Less: Accumulated depreciation(166,546) (107,160)
 $201,732
 $224,256
___________________________
1
The prior period amounts have been adjusted to reflect balances associated with our Large Joints business, as these amounts were classified as held for sale at December 27, 2015

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The components of property, plant and trauma revenue category.

equipment recorded under capital leases consist of the following (in thousands):

 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Buildings$15,529
 $12,408
Machinery and equipment5,356
 3,302
 20,885
 15,710
Less: Accumulated depreciation(4,482) (3,052)
 $16,403
 $12,658
Depreciation expense recognized within results of continuing operations approximated $55.8 million, $28.4 million, and $18.5 million for the fiscal years ended December 25, 2016, December 27, 2015, and December 31, 2014, respectively, and included depreciation of assets under capital leases.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

8. Goodwill and Intangibles
Changes in the carrying amount of goodwill occurring during the year ended December 25, 2016, are as follows (in thousands):
 U.S. Lower Extremities
& Biologics
U.S. Upper ExtremitiesInternational Extremities
& Biologics
Total
Goodwill at December 27, 2015 1
$221,327
$555,312
$90,350
$866,989
Goodwill adjustment associated with Wright/Tornier merger(2,802)3,357
(14,223)$(13,668)
Foreign currency translation

(2,279)$(2,279)
Goodwill at December 25, 2016$218,525
$558,669
$73,848
$851,042
1The OrthoHelix acquisition was accounted for as an acquisition of a business; and, accordingly, the financial resultsprior period amounts have been included inadjusted to reflect balances associated with our Large Joints business, as these amounts were classified as held for sale at December 27, 2015 (See Note 4).
Goodwill is recognized for the Company’s consolidated results of operations from the date of acquisition. The allocation of the total purchase price to the net tangible and identifiable intangible assets was based on their estimated fair values as of the acquisition date. The excess of the purchase price over the identifiable intangiblefair value of net assets of businesses acquired.
During the first quarter of 2016, our management, including our chief executive officer, who is our chief operating decision maker, began managing our operations as four operating segments: U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics, U.S. Upper Extremities, International Extremities & Biologics, and net tangible assetsLarge Joints, based on our chief executive officer's review of financial information at the operating segment level to allocate resources and to assess the operating results and financial performance of each segment. Management's change to the way it monitors performance, aligns strategies, and allocates resources resulted in a change in our reportable segments (see Note 20). We determined that each reportable segment represents a reporting unit and, in accordance with ASC 350, the amountchange required a re-allocation of $105.9goodwill to each reporting unit.  We allocated $219 million, $559 million, and $74 million of goodwill to the U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics, U.S. Upper Extremities, and International Extremities & Biologics reportable segments, respectively. As a result of the sale of the Large Joints business, $9.4 million of goodwill which was allocated to goodwill, which is not deductiblethe Large Joints reportable segment has been reclassified to assets held for tax purposes. Qualitatively, the three largest components of goodwill include: (1) expansion into international markets; (2) the relationships between the Company’s sales representatives and physicians; and (3) the development of new product lines and technology.

The following represents the allocation of the purchase price:

   Purchase Price
Allocation

(In Thousands)
 

Goodwill

  $105,904  

Other intangible assets

   40,600  

Tangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed:

  

Accounts receivable

   4,330  

Inventory

   12,033  

Other assets

   776  

Instruments, net

   4,475  

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities

   (3,606

Deferred income taxes

   (11,900

Other long-term debt

   (16
  

 

 

 

Total purchase price

  $152,596  
  

 

 

 

Acquired identifiable intangible assets are amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives. The following table represents components of these identifiable intangible assets and their estimated useful lives at the acquisition date:

   Fair Value
(In Thousands)
   Estimated Useful
Life

(In Years)
 

Developed technology

  $35,500     10  

In-process research and development

   3,500     N/A  

Trademarks and trade names

   1,500     3  

Non-compete agreements

   100     3  
  

 

 

   

Total identifiable intangible assets

  $40,600    
  

 

 

   

Of the $3.5 million in in-process research and development, three of the four projects have been completed and are included in developed technologysale within our consolidated balance sheet as of December 29, 2013.

27, 2015.

The estimated fair valuechange in segment reporting also required an interim review of potential goodwill impairment which we performed as of February 2016, the intangible assets acquired wassegment reorganization date. Upon completion of this analysis, we determined by the Company with the assistance of a third-party valuation expert. The Company used an income approach to measurethat the fair value of the developed technology and in-process research and development based on the multi-period excess earnings method, whereby the fair value is estimated based upon the present value of cash flows that the applicable asset is expected to generate. The Company usedour reporting units, determined primarily by an income approach to measureusing projected cash flows, exceeded their carrying values; and therefore, no goodwill was impaired.
During 2016, we revised opening balances acquired as a result of the fairWright/Tornier merger for accounts receivable; inventory; intangible assets; property, plant and equipment; accrued expenses and other current liabilities; and deferred tax liabilities which resulted in a $13.7 million decrease in the preliminary value of goodwill determined as of December 27, 2015. See Note 3 for additional discussion of these adjustments.
Goodwill is also required to be tested for impairment at least annually. As of October 1, 2016, we performed a qualitative assessment of goodwill for impairment and determined that it is not more likely than not that the trademarks based upon the relief from royalty method, whereby the fair value is estimated based upon discounting the royalty savings as well as any tax benefits related to ownership to a present value. The Company used an income approach to measure the faircarrying value of non-compete agreements, based on the incremental income method, whereby value is estimated by discounting the cash flow differential as well as any tax benefits related to ownership to a present value. Theseour U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics, U.S. Upper Extremities, and International Extremities & Biologics reporting units exceeded their respective fair value measurements were based on significant inputsvalues, indicating that goodwill was not observable in the market and thus represent Level 3 measurements under the fair value hierarchy. impaired.



WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The significant unobservable inputs include the discount ratecomponents of 8% which was based on the Company’s estimate of its weighted cost of capital.

Pro forma results of operations (unaudited) of the Company for the years ended December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, as if the acquisition had occurred on January 3, 2011, are as follows:

   Year Ended
December 30,
2012
  Year Ended
January 1,
2012
 

Revenue

  $298,051   $283,370  

Net loss

   (31,390  (43,155

Basic and diluted net loss per share

  $(0.75 $(1.07

The pro forma results of operations are not necessarily indicative of future operating results. Included in the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 30, 2012 are approximately $8.0 million of revenue and $1.8 million ofour identifiable intangible assets, net loss related to the operations of OrthoHelix subsequent to the transaction closing.

5. Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, plant and equipment balances are as follows (in thousands):

   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
 

Land

  $1,886   $1,830  

Building and improvements

   14,255    12,908  

Machinery and equipment

   31,192    25,767  

Furniture, fixtures and office equipment

   29,371    26,541  

Software

   5,511    4,729  

Construction in progress

   5,628    2,148  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 
   87,843    73,923  

Accumulated depreciation

   (44,349  (36,772
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Property, plant and equipment, net

  $43,494   $37,151  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Depreciation expense recorded on property, plant


 December 25, 2016 
December 27, 2015 1
 Cost 
Accumulated
amortization
 Cost 
Accumulated
amortization
Indefinite life intangibles:       
IPRD technology$938
   $15,290
  
        
Finite life intangibles:       
 Distribution channels900
 $374
 250
 $219
 Completed technology133,966
 26,550
 122,604
 14,828
 Licenses4,868
 1,115
 4,868
 703
 Customer relationships122,974
 15,133
 115,457
 7,918
 Trademarks13,950
 6,881
 14,440
 3,393
 Non-compete agreements11,810
 7,833
 7,521
 2,917
 Other524
 247
 527
 51
Total finite life intangibles288,992
 $58,133
 265,667
 $30,029
        
Total intangibles289,930
   280,957
  
Less: Accumulated amortization(58,133)   (30,029)  
Intangible assets, net$231,797
   $250,928
  
___________________________
1
The prior period amounts have been adjusted to reflect balances associated with our Large Joints business, as these amounts were classified as held for sale at December 27, 2015
During 2016, we received FDA clearance of PerFORM Rev/Rev+ and equipment was $6.8 million, $6.1 million and $6.0 million during the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively.

For the year ended December 29, 2013, the Company recognized $0.1 million of fixed asset impairments related to the OrthoHelix integration. As a result of the facilities consolidation initiative, the Company recorded several fixed asset impairments during 2012 related to the Company’s facilities in St. Ismier, France, Dunmanway, Ireland, and Stafford, Texas in the aggregate amount of $0.9 million for year ended December 30, 2012. Additionally, the Company recorded $0.1 million in impairments related to certain distribution channel changes in Europe in 2012. These changes are reflected in related fixed asset categories above. These impairments were recorded in special charges, a component of operating expenses, in the consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012. See Note 18 for further description of the facilities consolidation initiative.

Included in construction in progress is $5.6 million of software development costs, primarily related to the Company’s development of an enterprise resource planning system.

6. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

The following table summarizes the changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the years ended December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012 (in thousands):

Balance at January 1, 2012

  $130,544  
  

 

 

 

Contingent payment on acquisition

   1,193  

Goodwill acquired in acquisitions

   106,654  

Foreign currency translation

   1,413  
  

 

 

 

Balance at December 30, 2012

  $239,804  

Goodwill acquired in acquisitions

   8,239  

Foreign currency translation

   3,497  
  

 

 

 

Balance at December 29, 2013

  $251,540  
  

 

 

 

The goodwill balance at December 29, 2013 contains $16.8 million of goodwill that qualifies for future tax deductions.

The components of identifiable intangible assets are as follows (in thousands):

   Gross
Value
   Accumulated
Amortization
  Net Value 

Balances at December 29, 2013

     

Intangible assets subject to amortization:

     

Developed technology

  $112,782    $(44,161 $68,621  

Customer relationships

   61,783     (30,155  31,628  

Licenses

   6,810     (4,004  2,806  

In-process research and development

   400     —      400  

Other

   6,624     (2,431  4,193  

Intangible assets not subject to amortization:

     

Tradename

   9,960     —      9,960  
  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total

  $198,359    $(80,751 $117,608  
  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

   Gross
Value
   Accumulated
Amortization
  Net Value 

Balances at December 30, 2012

     

Intangible assets subject to amortization:

     

Developed technology

  $108,274    $(34,114 $74,160  

Customer relationships

   59,212     (24,634  34,578  

Licenses

   5,525     (2,927  2,598  

In-process research and development

   3,200     —      3,200  

Other

   3,923     (1,357  2,566  

Intangible assets not subject to amortization:

     

Tradename

   9,492     —      9,492  
  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total

  $189,626    $(63,032 $126,594  
  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

During the year ended December 29, 2013, the Company acquired certain assets of its distributor in Canada for $3.3 million, which included $0.5 million in potential earn-out payments, which were subsequently paid. The purchase accounting for this transaction resulted in an increase in intangible assets of $0.5 million, in the form of customer relationships and non-compete agreements, and an increase in goodwill of $0.3 million. Additionally, during the year ended December 29, 2013, the Company acquired certain assets of a distributor in the United Kingdom for $1.0 million, which included $0.1 million in potential earn-out payments, which were subsequently paid. The purchase accounting for this transaction resulted in an increase in intangible assets of $0.1 million in the form of customer relationships. In addition, during the year ended December 29, 2013, the Company acquired certain assets of a distributor in Australia for $2.6 million, which included $0.2 million in potential earn-out payments. The purchase accounting for this transaction resulted in an increase in intangible assets of $0.1 million in the form of non-compete agreements and an increase in goodwill of $1.4 million. Also during the year ended December 29, 2013, the Company acquired certain U.S. distributors and independent sales agencies. The purchase accounting for these U.S. distributor transactions resulted in $2.2 million of intangible assets, primarily non-compete agreements and an increase in goodwill of $6.7 million.

During the year ended December 30, 2012, the Company acquired its exclusive distributor in Belgium and Luxembourg for $3.5 million, which included a $1.0 million earn-out. The purchase accounting for this transaction resulted in an increase in intangible assets of $3.0 million and an increase in goodwill of $0.8 million for the year ended December 30, 2012. Additionally, the Company acquired OrthoHelix on October 4, 2012PerFORM+, which resulted in a $14.9 million reclassification from IPRD technology to completed technology.

Based on the recording of additional goodwill of $105.9 million and additionaltotal finite life intangible assets of $40.6held at December 25, 2016, we expect to amortize approximately $27.2 million for the year ended December 30, 2012. See Note 4 for further details on the acquisition of OrthoHelix.

For the year ended December 29, 2013, the Company recognized an impairment charge of $0.1 in 2017, $22.1 million related to license intangibles that are no longer being used. For the year ended December 30, 2012, the Company recognized an impairment charge of $4.7 in 2018, $20.4 million related to intangibles where the carrying value was greater than the fair value of the intangibles due to a reduction in forecasted revenue from the products that related to the intangible as a result of acquiring similar products as part of the OrthoHelix acquisition. For the year ended January 1, 2012, the Company recognized an impairment charge of $0.22019, $19.8 million related to developed technology from acquired entities that is no longer being used.

Allfinite-lived in intangible assets have been assigned an estimated useful life2020, and are amortized on a straight-line basis over the number of years that approximates the assets’ respective useful lives (ranging from one to twenty years). Included$19.6 million in other intangibles are non-compete agreements2021.



WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

9. Debt and patents. Theweighted-average amortization periods, by major intangible asset class, are as follows:

Weighted-Average
Amortization Period
(In Years)

Developed technology

12

Customer relationships

13

Licenses

5

In-process research and development

—  

Other

3

Total amortization expense forfinite-lived intangible assets was $15.9 million, $11.6 millionCapital Lease Obligations

Debt and $11.3 million during the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively. Amortization expense is recorded as amortization of intangible assets in the consolidated statements of operations. Estimated annual amortization expense for fiscal years ending 2014 through 2018 is as follows (in thousands):

   Amortization Expense 

2014

  $16,866  

2015

   16,420  

2016

   14,213  

2017

   13,299  

2018

   12,475  

7. Accrued Liabilities

Accrued liabilitiescapital lease obligations consist of the following (in thousands):

   December 29, 2013   December 30, 2012 

Accrued payroll and related expenses

  $21,499    $16,521  

Accrued royalties

   9,169     9,001  

Accrued sales and use tax

   4,727     2,022  

Accrued agent commissions

   4,554     5,266  

Other accrued liabilities

   10,765     11,599  
  

 

 

   

 

 

 
  $50,714    $44,410  
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

8. Long-Term Debt

A summary of long-term debt is as follows (in thousands):

   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
 

Lines of credit and overdraft arrangements

  $—     $1,000  

Mortgages

   4,993    3,719  

Bank term debt

   61,769    113,135  

Shareholder debt

   2,319    2,198  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total debt

   69,081    120,052  

Less current portion

   (1,438  (4,595
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Long-term debt

  $67,643   $115,457  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Aggregate maturities of debt for the next five years are as follows (in thousands):

2014

  $1,438  

2015

   1,275  

2016

   1,447  

2017

   61,406  

2018

   649  

Thereafter

   2,866  

Lines of Credit

 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Capital lease obligations$14,892
 $13,763
    
2021 Notes280,811
 
2020 Notes 1
482,364
 489,006
2017 Notes 1
1,971

55,865
Asset-based line of credit30,000
 
Mortgages2,544
 2,740
Shareholder debt1,773
 1,998
 814,355
 563,372
Less: current portion(33,948) (2,171)
 $780,407
 $561,201
1
The prior period debt issuance costs were reclassified to account for adoptions of ASU 2015-03 and ASU 2015-15 (See Note 2).
2021 Notes
On October 4, 2012, the Company, and one of its U.S. operating subsidiaries, Tornier, Inc. (Tornier USA), entered into a credit agreement with Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, SG Americas Securities, LLC, as Syndication Agent, BMO Capital Markets and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Co-Documentation Agents, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and SG Americas Securities, LLC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners, and the other lenders party thereto. The credit facility included a senior secured revolving credit facility to Tornier USA denominated at the election of Tornier USA, in U.S. dollars, Euros, pounds, sterling and yen in anMay 20, 2016, we issued $395 million aggregate principal amount of upthe 2021 Notes pursuant to an indenture (2021 Notes Indenture) dated as of May 20, 2016 between us and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee. The 2021 Notes require interest to be paid at an annual rate of 2.25% semi-annually in arrears on each May 15 and November 15, and mature on November 15, 2021 unless earlier converted or repurchased. The 2021 Notes are convertible, subject to certain conditions, solely into cash. The initial conversion rate for the 2021 Notes will be 46.8165 ordinary shares (subject to adjustment as provided in the 2021 Notes Indenture) per $1,000 principal amount of the 2021 Notes (subject to, and in accordance with, the settlement provisions of the 2021 Notes Indenture), which is equal to an initial conversion price of approximately $21.36 per ordinary share. We may not redeem the 2021 Notes prior to the U.S. dollar equivalentmaturity date, and no “sinking fund” is available for the 2021 Notes, which means that we are not required to redeem or retire the 2021 Notes periodically.
The holders of $30.0 million. Funds available under the revolving credit facility2021 Notes may be usedconvert their 2021 Notes at any time prior to May 15, 2021 solely into cash, in multiples of $1,000 principal amount, upon satisfaction of one or more of the following circumstances: (1) during any calendar quarter commencing after the calendar quarter ending on June 30, 2016 (and only during such calendar quarter), if the last reported sale price of our ordinary shares for generalat least 20 trading days (whether or not consecutive) during a period of 30 consecutive trading days ending on the last trading day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter is greater than or equal to 130% of the conversion price on each applicable trading day; (2) during the five business day period after any five consecutive trading day period in which the trading price per $1,000 principal amount of 2021 Notes for each trading day of the measurement period was less than 98% of the product of the last reported sale price of our ordinary shares and the conversion rate on each such trading day; or (3) upon the occurrence of specified corporate purposes. Loans underevents. On or after May 15, 2021 until the revolving credit facility bear interest at (a)close of business on the alternate base rate (if denominatedsecond scheduled trading day immediately preceding the maturity date, holders may convert their 2021 Notes solely into cash, regardless of the foregoing circumstances. Upon conversion, a holder will receive an amount in U.S. dollars),cash, per $1,000 principal amount of the 2021 Notes, equal to the greatest of (i)settlement amount as calculated under the prime rate in effect on such day, (ii) the federal funds rate in effect on such day plus 1/2 of 1%, and (iii) the adjusted LIBO rate plus 1%, plus in the case of each of (i)-(iii) above, an applicable rate of 2.00% or 2.25% (depending on the Company’s total net leverage ratio2021 Notes Indenture. If we undergo a fundamental change, as defined in its credit agreement),the 2021 Notes Indenture, subject to certain conditions, holders of the 2021 Notes will have the option to require us to repurchase for cash all or (b) ina portion of their 2021 Notes at a repurchase price equal to 100% of the caseprincipal amount of a eurocurrency loan (asthe 2021 Notes to be repurchased, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the fundamental change repurchase date, as defined in the credit agreement), at2021 Notes Indenture. In addition, following certain corporate transactions, we, under certain circumstances, will increase the applicable adjusted LIBOconversion rate for the relevant interest period plus an applicable ratea holder that elects to convert its 2021 Notes in connection with such corporate transaction. The 2021 Notes are senior unsecured obligations that rank: (i) senior in right of 3.00% or 3.25% (depending on the Company’s total net leverage ratio), plus the mandatory cost (as definedpayment to any of our indebtedness that is expressly subordinated in the credit agreement) if such loan is made in a currency other than U.S. dollars or from a lending office in the United Kingdom or a participating member state (as defined in the credit agreement). Additionally, the Company is subject to a 0.5% interest rate relatedright of payment to the unfunded balance on2021 Notes; (ii) equal in right of payment to any of our unsecured indebtedness that is not so subordinated; (iii) effectively junior in right of payment to any of our secured indebtedness to the lineextent of credit. There was no outstanding amount under the linevalue of credit as the assets securing such indebtedness; and (iv) structurally junior to all indebtedness and other liabilities (including trade payables)

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

of December 29, 2013.our subsidiaries. As a result of December 30, 2012, the outstanding balance related to this lineissuance of credit was $1.0 million. Thethe 2021 Notes, we recorded deferred financing charges of approximately $7.3 million, which are being amortized over the term of the line2021 Notes using the effective interest method.
The 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative requires bifurcation from the 2021 Notes in accordance with ASC Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and is accounted for as a derivative liability. See Note 6 for additional information regarding the 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative. The fair value of credit ends in October 2017.

The Company’s European subsidiaries had established unsecured bank overdraft arrangements prior to 2012. This debtthe 2021 Notes Conversion Derivative at the time of issuance of the 2021 Notes was paid off in 2012 and the Company recorded a loss on extinguishment of debt of $0.6 million related to prepayment fees and penalties.

Mortgages

The Company has mortgages secured by an office building in Montbonnot, France. These mortgages had an outstanding balance of $5.0$117.2 million and $3.7 million at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively, and bear fixed annualwas recorded as original debt discount for purposes of accounting for the debt component of the 2021 Notes. This discount is amortized as interest rates of 2.55%-4.9%.

Bank Term Debt

In addition toexpense using the senior secured revolving credit facility discussed above, the credit agreement entered into on October 4, 2012 also provided for an aggregate credit commitment to Tornier USA of $115.0 million, consisting of: (1) a senior secured term loan facility to Tornier USA denominated in dollars in an aggregate principal amount of up to $75.0

million; (2) a senior secured term loan facility to Tornier USA denominated in Euros in an aggregate principal amount of up to the U.S. dollar equivalent of $40.0 million. The borrowings undereffective interest method over the term loan facilities were used to pay the cash consideration for the OrthoHelix acquisition, and fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with the acquisition and the credit agreement and to repay prior existing indebtedness of the Company and its subsidiaries. The term loans mature in October 2017. In2021 Notes. For the second quarter of 2013, the $40.0 million senior secured term loan facility denominated in Euros was repaid in full. As part of the repayment, the Companyyear ended December 25, 2016, we recorded $1.1 million loss on extinguishment of debt related to the write-off of the corresponding deferred financing costs. Additionally, in June 2013, the Company repaid $10.5$9.8 million of the senior secured U.S. dollar denominated loan. Amounts recorded in interest expense related to the amortization of the debt discount based upon an effective rate of 9.72%.

The components of the 2021 Notes were as follows (in thousands):
 December 25, 2016
Principal amount of 2021 Notes$395,000
Unamortized debt discount(107,441)
Unamortized debt issuance costs(6,748)
Net carrying amount of 2021 Notes$280,811
The estimated fair value of the 2021 Notes was approximately $1.0$497.0 million at December 25, 2016, based on a quoted price in an active market (Level 1).
We entered into 2021 Notes Hedges in connection with the issuance of the 2021 Notes with two counterparties. The 2021 Notes Hedges, which are cash-settled, are generally intended to reduce our exposure to potential cash payments that we would be required to make if holders elect to convert the 2021 Notes at a time when our ordinary share price exceeds the conversion price. However, in connection with certain events, including, among others, (i) a merger or other make-whole fundamental change (as defined in the 2021 Notes Indenture); (ii) certain hedging disruption events, which may include changes in tax laws, an increase in the cost of borrowing our ordinary shares in the market or other material increases in the cost to the option counterparties of hedging the 2021 Note Hedges; (iii) our failure to perform certain obligations under the 2021 Notes Indenture or under the 2021 Notes Hedges; (iv) certain payment defaults on our existing indebtedness in excess of $25 million; or (v) if we or any of our significant subsidiaries become insolvent or otherwise becomes subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the option counterparties have the discretion to terminate the 2021 Notes Hedges, which may reduce the effectiveness of the 2021 Notes Hedges. In addition, the option counterparties have broad discretion to make certain adjustments to the 2021 Notes Hedges and warrant transactions upon the occurrence of certain other events, including, among others, (i) any adjustment to the conversion rate of the 2021 Notes; or (ii) upon the announcement of certain significant corporate events, including events that may give rise to a termination event as described above, such as the announcement of a third-party tender offer. Any such adjustment may also reduce the effectiveness of the 2021 Note Hedges. The aggregate cost of the 2021 Notes Hedges was $99.8 million and is accounted for as a derivative asset in accordance with ASC Topic 815. See Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the 2021 Notes Hedges.
We also entered into warrant transactions in which we sold warrants for an aggregate of 18.5 million ordinary shares to the two option counterparties, subject to adjustment, for an aggregate of $54.6 million. The strike price of the warrants is $30.00 per share, which was 69% above the last reported sale price of our ordinary shares on May 12, 2016. The warrants are expected to be net-share settled and exercisable over the 100 trading day period beginning on February 15, 2022. The warrant transactions will have a dilutive effect on our ordinary shares to the extent that the market value per ordinary share during such period exceeds the applicable strike price of the warrants. However, in connection with certain events, these option counterparties have the discretion to make certain adjustments to warrant transactions, which may increase our obligations under the warrant transactions.
Aside from the initial payment of the $99.8 million premium in the aggregate to the two option counterparties and subject to the right of the option counterparties to terminate the 2021 Notes Hedges in certain circumstances, we do not expect to be required to make any cash payments to the option counterparties under the 2021 Notes Hedges and expect to be entitled to receive from the option counterparties cash, generally equal to the amount by which the market price per ordinary share exceeds the strike price of the convertible note hedging transactions during the relevant valuation period. The strike price under the 2021 Notes Hedges is initially equal to the conversion price of the 2021 Notes. However, in connection with certain events, these option counterparties have the discretion to make certain adjustments to the 2021 Note Hedges, which may reduce the effectiveness of the 2021 Note Hedges. Additionally, if the market value per ordinary share exceeds the strike price on any settlement date under the warrant transaction, we will generally be obligated to issue to the option counterparties in the aggregate a number of shares equal in value

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

to one percent of the amount by which the then-current market value of one ordinary share exceeds the then-effective strike price of each warrant, multiplied by the number of ordinary shares into which the 2021 Notes are initially convertible. We will not receive any additional proceeds if warrants are exercised.
As described in more detail below, concurrently with the issuance and sale of the 2021 Notes, certain holders of the 2017 Notes and the 2020 Notes exchanged their 2017 Notes or 2020 Notes for the 2021 Notes.
2020 Notes
On February 13, 2015, WMG issued $632.5 million aggregate principal amount of the 2020 Notes pursuant to an indenture (2020 Notes Indenture) dated as of February 13, 2015 between WMG and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee. The 2020 Notes require interest to be paid semi-annually on each February 15 and August 15 at an annual rate of 2.00%, and mature on February 15, 2020 unless earlier converted or repurchased. The 2020 Notes are convertible at the option of the holder, during certain periods and subject to certain conditions described below, solely into cash at an initial conversion rate of 32.3939 shares of WMG common stock per $1,000 principal amount of the 2020 Notes, subject to adjustment upon the occurrence of certain events, which represents an initial conversion price of approximately $30.87 per share of WMG common stock. On November 24, 2015, Wright Medical Group N.V. executed a supplemental indenture, fully and unconditionally guaranteeing, on a senior unsecured basis, WMG’s obligations relating to the 2020 Notes, changing the underlying reference securities from WMG common stock to Wright Medical Group N.V. ordinary shares and making a corresponding adjustment to the conversion price. From and after the effective time of the Wright/Tornier merger, (i) all calculations and other determinations with respect to the 2020 Notes previously based on references to WMG common stock are calculated or determined by reference to our ordinary shares, and (ii) the conversion rate (as defined in the 2020 Notes Indenture) for the 2020 Notes was adjusted to an initial conversion rate of 33.39487 ordinary shares (subject to adjustment as provided in the 2020 Notes Indenture) per $1,000 principal amount of the 2020 Notes, which represents an initial conversion price of approximately $29.94 per ordinary share (subject to, and in accordance with, the settlement provisions of the 2020 Notes Indenture). The 2020 Notes may not be redeemed by WMG prior to the maturity date, and no “sinking fund” is available for the 2020 Notes, which means that WMG is not required to redeem or retire the 2020 Notes periodically.
The holders of the 2020 Notes may convert their notes at any time prior to August 15, 2019 solely into cash, in multiples of $1,000 principal amount, upon satisfaction of one or more of the following circumstances: (1) during any calendar quarter commencing after the calendar quarter ending on March 31, 2015 (and only during such calendar quarter), if the last reported sale price of our ordinary shares for at least 20 trading days (whether or not consecutive) during a period of 30 consecutive trading days ending on the last trading day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter is greater than or equal to 130% of the conversion price on each applicable trading day; (2) during the five business day period after any five consecutive trading day period in which the trading price per $1,000 principal amount of 2020 Notes for each trading day of the measurement period was less than 98% of the product of the last reported sale price of our ordinary shares and the conversion rate on each such trading day; or (3) upon the occurrence of specified corporate events. The Wright/Tornier merger did not result in a conversion right for holders of the 2020 Notes. On or after August 15, 2019 until the close of business on the second scheduled trading day immediately preceding the maturity date, holders may convert their 2020 Notes solely into cash, regardless of the foregoing circumstances. Upon conversion, a holder will receive an amount in cash, per $1,000 principal amount of the 2020 Notes, equal to the settlement amount as calculated under the 2020 Notes Indenture. If WMG undergoes a fundamental change, as defined in the 2020 Notes Indenture, subject to certain conditions, holders of the 2020 Notes will have the option to require WMG to repurchase for cash all or a portion of their notes at a purchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 2020 Notes to be repurchased, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the fundamental change repurchase date, as defined in the 2020 Notes Indenture. In addition, following certain corporate transactions, WMG, under certain circumstances, will increase the applicable conversion rate for a holder that elects to convert its 2020 Notes in connection with such corporate transaction. The 2020 Notes are senior unsecured obligations that rank: (i) senior in right of payment to any of WMG's indebtedness that is expressly subordinated in right of payment to the 2020 Notes; (ii) equal in right of payment to any of WMG's unsecured indebtedness that is not so subordinated; (iii) effectively junior in right of payment to any secured indebtedness to the extent of the value of the assets securing such indebtedness; and (iv) structurally junior to all indebtedness and other liabilities (including trade payables) of WMG's subsidiaries. In conjunction with the issuance of the 2020 Notes, we recorded deferred financing charges of approximately $18.1 million, which are being amortized over the term of the 2020 Notes using the effective interest method.
The 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative requires bifurcation from the 2020 Notes in accordance with ASC Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and is accounted for as a derivative liability. See Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative. The fair value of the 2020 Notes Conversion Derivative at the time of issuance of the 2020 Notes was $149.8 million and was recorded as original debt discount for purposes of accounting for the debt component of the 2020 Notes. This discount is amortized as interest expense using the effective interest method over the term

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

of the 2020 Notes. For the years ended December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, we recorded $25.9 million and $21.8 million, respectively, of interest expense related to the amortization of the debt discount based upon an effective rate of 8.54%.
Concurrently with the issuance and sale of the 2021 Notes, certain holders of the 2020 Notes exchanged approximately $45.0 million aggregate principal amount of their 2020 Notes for the 2021 Notes. For each $1,000 principal amount of 2020 Notes validly submitted for exchange, we delivered $990.0 principal amount of the 2021 Notes (subject to rounding down to the nearest $1,000 principal amount of the 2021 Notes, the difference being referred as the rounded amount) to the investor plus an amount of cash equal to the unpaid interest on the 2020 Notes and the rounded amount. As a result of this note exchange and retirement of $45.0 million aggregate principal amount of the 2020 Notes, we recognized approximately $9.3 million for the write-off of related pro-rata unamortized deferred financing fees and debt discount within “Other expense (income), net” in our consolidated statements of operations during the year ended December 29, 2013.

Borrowings under these facilities within25, 2016.

The components of the credit agreement as of December 29, 2013 and December 30, 20122020 Notes were as follows:

   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
 

Senior secured U.S. dollar term loan

  $64,031   $75,925  

Senior secured Euro term loan

   —      40,772  

Debt discount

   (3,157  (5,138
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total

  $60,874   $111,559  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

follows (in thousands):

 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Principal amount of 2020 Notes$587,500
 $632,500
Unamortized debt discount(93,749) (127,953)
Unamortized debt issuance costs(11,387) (15,541)
Net carrying amount of 2020 Notes 1
$482,364
 $489,006
1
The prior period debt issuance costs were reclassified to account for adoption of ASU 2015-03 and ASU 2015-15 (See Note 2).
The USD term facility bears interestestimated fair value of the 2020 Notes was approximately $629 million at (a)December 25, 2016, based on a quoted price in an active market (Level 1).
WMG entered into the alternate base rate (if denominated2020 Notes Hedges in U.S. dollars), equalconnection with the issuance of the 2020 Notes with three option counterparties. The 2020 Notes Hedges, which are cash-settled, are generally intended to reduce WMG's exposure to potential cash payments that WMG would be required to make if holders elect to convert the greatest of2020 Notes at a time when our ordinary share price exceeds the conversion price. However, in connection with certain events, including, among others, (i) the prime rate in effect on such day, (ii) the federal funds rate in effect on such day plus 1/2 of 1%, and (iii) the adjusted LIBO rate, with a floor of 1%merger or other make-whole fundamental change (as defined in the new credit agreement) plus 1%, plus2020 Notes indenture); (ii) certain hedging disruption events, which may include changes in tax laws, an increase in the casecost of borrowing our ordinary shares in the market or other material increases in the cost to the option counterparties of hedging the 2020 Note Hedges; (iii) WMG's failure to perform certain obligations under the 2020 Notes Indenture or under the 2020 Notes Hedges; (iv) certain payment defaults on WMG's existing indebtedness in excess of $25 million; or (v) if WMG or any of its significant subsidiaries become insolvent or otherwise becomes subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the option counterparties have the discretion to terminate the 2020 Note Hedges at a value determined by them in a commercially reasonable manner and/or adjust the terms of the 2020 Note Hedges, which may reduce the effectiveness of the 2020 Note Hedges. In addition, the option counterparties have broad discretion to make certain adjustments to the 2020 Notes Hedges upon the occurrence of certain other events, including, among others, (i) any adjustment to the conversion rate of the 2020 Notes; or (ii) upon the announcement of certain significant corporate events, including events that may give rise to a termination event as described above, such as the announcement of a third-party tender offer. Any such adjustment may also reduce the effectiveness of the 2020 Note Hedges. The aggregate cost of the 2020 Notes Hedges was $144.8 million and is accounted for as a derivative asset in accordance with ASC Topic 815. See Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the 2020 Notes Hedges.
WMG also entered into warrant transactions in which it sold warrants for an aggregate of 20.5 million shares of WMG common stock to the three option counterparties, subject to adjustment. The strike price of the warrants was initially $40 per share of WMG common stock, which was 59% above the last reported sale price of WMG common stock on February 9, 2015. On November 24, 2015, Wright Medical Group N.V. assumed WMG's obligations pursuant to the warrants. Following the assumption, the warrants became exercisable for 21.1 million Wright Medical Group N.V. ordinary shares and the strike price of the warrants was adjusted to $38.8010 per ordinary share. The warrants are expected to be net-share settled and exercisable over the 200 trading day period beginning on May 15, 2020. The warrant transactions will have a dilutive effect on our ordinary shares to the extent that the market value per ordinary share during such period exceeds the applicable strike price of the warrants. However, in connection with certain events, these option counterparties have the discretion to make certain adjustments to warrant transactions, which may increase our obligations under the warrant transactions.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

During the three months ended June 26, 2016, we settled a portion of the 2020 Notes Hedges (receiving $3.9 million) and repurchased warrants for an aggregate of 1.5 million ordinary shares (paying $3.3 million) associated with the 2020 Notes.
Aside from the initial payment of the $144.8 million premium in the aggregate to the option counterparties, we do not expect to be required to make any cash payments to the option counterparties under the 2020 Notes Hedges and expect to be entitled to receive from the option counterparties cash, generally equal to the amount by which the market price per ordinary share exceeds the strike price of the convertible note hedging transactions during the relevant valuation period. The strike price under the 2020 Notes Hedges is initially equal to the conversion price of the 2020 Notes. However, in connection with certain events, these option counterparties have the discretion to make certain adjustments to the 2020 Note Hedges, which may reduce the effectiveness of the 2020 Note Hedges. Additionally, if the market value per ordinary share exceeds the strike price on any settlement date under the warrant transaction, we will generally be obligated to issue to the option counterparties in the aggregate a number of ordinary shares equal in value to one half of one percent of the amount by which the then-current market value of one ordinary share exceeds the then-effective strike price of each warrant, multiplied by the number of (i)-(iii) above,reference ordinary shares into which the 2020 Notes are initially convertible. We will not receive any additional proceeds if warrants are exercised.
2017 Notes
On August 31, 2012, WMG issued $300 million aggregate principal amount of the 2017 Notes pursuant to an applicableindenture (2017 Notes Indenture) dated as of August 31, 2012 between WMG and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee. The 2017 Notes mature on August 15, 2017, and we pay interest on the 2017 Notes semi-annually on each February 15 and August 15 at an annual rate of 2.00%. WMG may not redeem the 2017 Notes prior to the maturity date, and no “sinking fund” is available for the 2017 Notes, which means that WMG is not required to redeem or 2.25% (dependingretire the 2017 Notes periodically. The 2017 Notes are convertible at the option of the holder, during certain periods and subject to certain conditions as described below, solely into cash at an initial conversion rate of 39.3140 shares per $1,000 principal amount of the 2017 Notes, subject to adjustment upon the occurrence of specified events, which represents an initial conversion price of $25.44 per share. Holders may convert their 2017 Notes at any time prior to February 15, 2017 only under the following circumstances: (1) during any calendar quarter commencing after the calendar quarter ending December 31, 2012 (and only during such calendar quarter), if the last reported sale price of our ordinary shares for at least 20 trading days (whether or not consecutive) during a period of 30 consecutive trading days ending on the Company’s total net leverage ratiolast trading day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter is greater than or equal to 130% of the conversion price on each applicable trading day; (2) during the five business day period after any five consecutive trading day period in which the trading price per $1,000 principal amount of notes for each trading day of the measurement period was less than 98% of the product of the last reported sale price of our ordinary shares and the conversion rate on each such trading day; or (3) upon the occurrence of specified corporate events. While we currently do not expect significant conversions because the 2017 Notes currently trade at a premium to the as-converted value, and a converting holder would forego future interest payments, any conversions would reduce our cash resources. On or after February 15, 2017 until the close of business on the second scheduled trading day immediately preceding the maturity date, holders may convert their 2017 Notes solely into cash, regardless of the foregoing circumstances. Upon conversion, a holder will receive an amount in cash, per $1,000 principal amount of the 2017 Notes, equal to the settlement amount as calculated under the 2017 Notes Indenture. If we undergo a fundamental change, as defined in the Company’s credit agreement),2017 Notes Indenture, subject to certain conditions, holders of the 2017 Notes will have the option to require WMG to repurchase for cash all or (b) ina portion of their 2017 Notes at a purchase price equal to 100% of the caseprincipal amount of a eurocurrency loan (asthe 2017 Notes to be repurchased, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the fundamental change repurchase date, as defined in the Company’s credit agreement),2017 Notes Indenture. In addition, following certain corporate transactions, WMG, under certain circumstances, will pay a cash make-whole premium by increasing the applicable conversion rate for a holder that elects to convert its 2017 Notes in connection with such corporate transaction. The 2017 Notes are senior unsecured obligations that rank: (i) senior in right of payment to any of WMG's indebtedness that is expressly subordinated in right of payment to the 2017 Notes; (ii) equal in right of payment to any of WMG's unsecured indebtedness that is not so subordinated; (iii) effectively junior in right of payment to any secured indebtedness to the extent of the value of the assets securing such indebtedness; and (iv) structurally junior to all indebtedness and other liabilities (including trade payables) of WMG's subsidiaries. As a result of the issuance of the 2017 Notes, we recognized deferred financing charges of approximately $8.8 million, which are being amortized over the term of the 2017 Notes using the effective interest method.
The 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative requires bifurcation from the 2017 Notes in accordance with ASC Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and is accounted for as a derivative liability. See Note 6 of the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative. The fair value of the 2017 Notes Conversion Derivative at the applicable adjusted LIBO ratetime of issuance of the 2017 Notes was $48.1 million and was recorded as original debt discount for purposes of accounting for the relevantdebt component of the 2017 Notes. This discount is amortized as interest periodexpense using the effective interest method over the term of the 2017 Notes. For the years ended December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, we recorded $0.9 million and $2.9 million of interest expense related to the amortization of the debt discount, respectively, based upon an effective rate of 6.47%.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

In connection with the issuance of the 2020 Notes, on February 13, 2015, WMG repurchased and extinguished $240 million aggregate principal amount of the 2017 Notes and settled all of the 2017 Notes Hedges (receiving $70 million) and repurchased all of the warrants (paying $60 million) associated with the 2017 Notes. As a result of the repurchase, we recognized approximately $25.1 million for the write-off of related pro-rata unamortized deferred financing fees and debt discount within “Other expense (income), net” in our consolidated statements of operations during the year ended December 27, 2015.
Concurrently with the issuance and sale of the 2021 Notes, certain holders of the 2017 Notes exchanged approximately $54.4 million aggregate principal amount their 2017 Notes for the 2021 Notes. For each $1,000 principal amount of 2017 Notes validly submitted for exchange, we delivered $1,035.40 principal amount of 2021 Notes (subject to rounding down to the nearest $1,000 principal amount of the 2021 Notes, the difference being referred as the rounded amount) to the investor plus an applicable rateamount of 3.00% or 3.25% (dependingcash equal to the unpaid interest on the Company’s total net leverage ratio)2017 Notes and the rounded amount. In addition, during the three months ended June 26, 2016, we repurchased and extinguished an additional $3.6 million aggregate principal amount of the 2017 Notes in privately negotiated transactions. As a result of this exchange and these repurchases, we recognized approximately $3.0 million for the write-off of related pro-rata unamortized deferred financing fees and debt discount within “Other expense (income), plusnet” in our consolidated statements of operations during the mandatory cost (as definedyear ended December 25, 2016.
The components of the 2017 Notes were as follows (in thousands):
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Principal amount of 2017 Notes$2,026
 $60,000
Unamortized debt discount(47) (3,495)
Unamortized debt issuance costs(8) (640)
Net carrying amount of 2017 Notes 1
$1,971
 $55,865
1
The prior period debt issuance costs were reclassified to account for adoption of ASU 2015-03 and ASU 2015-15 (See Note 2).
The estimated fair value of the 2017 Notes was approximately $2.1 million at December 25, 2016, based on a quoted price in an active market (Level 1).
ABL Facility
On December 23, 2016, we, together with WMG and certain of our other wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries (collectively, Borrowers), entered into a Credit, Security and Guaranty Agreement (ABL Credit Agreement) with Midcap Financial Trust, as administrative agent (Agent) and a lender and the additional lenders from time to time party thereto. The ABL Credit Agreement provides for a $150.0 million senior secured asset based line of credit, subject to the satisfaction of a borrowing base requirement (ABL Facility). The ABL Facility may be increased by up to $100.0 million upon the Borrowers’ request, subject to the consent of the Agent and each of the other lenders providing such increase. All borrowings under the ABL Facility are subject to the satisfaction of customary conditions, including the absence of default, the accuracy of representations and warranties in all material respects and the delivery of an updated borrowing base certificate. As of December 25, 2016, we had $30.0 million in borrowings outstanding under the ABL Facility. We have reflected this debt as a current liability on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 25, 2016, as required by US GAAP due to the weekly lockbox repayment/re-borrowing arrangement underlying the agreement, as well as the ability for the bank to accelerate the repayment of the debt under certain circumstances as described below. In conjunction with the ABL Facility, we incurred $2.5 million of debt issuance costs related to the ABL Facility, which is included within "Other assets" on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 25, 2016. These costs will be amortized over the five-year term of the ABL Facility as described below.
The interest rate margin applicable to borrowings under the ABL Facility is, at the option of the Borrowers, equal to either (a) 3.25% for base rate loans or (b) 4.25% for LIBOR rate loans, subject to a 0.75% LIBOR floor. In addition to paying interest on the outstanding loans under the ABL Facility, the Borrowers also are required to pay a customary unused line fee equal to 0.50% per annum in respect of unutilized commitments and certain other customary fees related to Agent’s administration of the ABL Facility. Beginning January 1, 2017, the Borrowers are required to maintain a minimum drawn balance on the ABL Facility equal to 20% of the average borrowing base for each month. To the extent the actual drawn balance is less than 20%, the Borrowers must pay a fee equal to the amount the lenders under the ABL Facility would have earned had the Borrowers maintained a minimum drawn balance equal to 20% of the average borrowing base for such month.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The ABL Credit Agreement requires that the Borrowers calculate the borrowing base for the ABL Facility on at least a monthly basis and each time the Borrowers make a draw on the ABL Facility in accordance with the formula set forth in the credit agreement) ifABL Credit Agreement. The borrowing base is subject to adjustment and the implementation of reserves by the Agent in its permitted discretion, as further described in the ABL Credit Agreement. If at any time the outstanding drawn balance under the ABL Facility exceeds the borrowing base as in effect at such loantime, Borrowers will be required to prepay loans under the ABL Facility in an amount equal to such excess. Certain accounts receivables and proceeds of collateral of the Borrowers will be applied to reduce the outstanding principal amount of the ABL Facility on a periodic basis.
There is madeno scheduled amortization under the ABL Facility and (subject to borrowing base requirements and applicable conditions to borrowing) the available revolving commitment may be borrowed, repaid and reborrowed without restriction. All outstanding loans under the ABL Facility will be due and payable in full on the date that is the earliest to occur of (x) December 23, 2021, (y) the date that is 91 days prior to the maturity date of the 2020 Notes or (z) the date that is 91 days prior to the maturity date of the 2021 Notes, provided that, the springing maturity under clauses (y) and (z) are subject to the Borrowers’ ability to refinance, extend, renew or replace the 2020 Notes and/or the 2021 Notes, as applicable, in full pursuant to the terms of the ABL Credit Agreement. Any voluntary or mandatory permanent reduction or termination of the revolving commitments under the ABL Facility is subject to a currency other than U.S. dollarsprepayment premium applicable to such reduced or terminated amount equal to (i) 3.0% through December 23, 2017, (ii) 2.0% from a lending officeDecember 24, 2017 through December 23, 2018 and (iii) 0.75% at any time thereafter.
The ABL Credit Agreement contains certain negative covenants that restrict our ability to take certain actions as specified in the Credit Agreement and an affirmative covenant that we maintain net revenue at or above minimum levels and maintain liquidity in the United Kingdom orStates at a participating member state (as definedlevel specified in the credit agreement).

The credit agreement, includingABL Credit Agreement, subject to certain exceptions. All of the term loan and the revolving line of credit, contains covenants, including financial covenants which require the Company to maintain minimum interest coverage, annual capital expenditure limits and maximum total net leverage ratios, and customary events of default. The obligations under the credit agreementABL Facility are guaranteed jointly and severally by the Company, Tornier USAWright Medical Group N.V. and certain other specified subsidiarieseach of the Company, and subjectBorrowers on the terms set forth in the ABL Credit Agreement. Subject to certain exceptions set forth in the ABL Credit Agreement, amounts outstanding under the ABL Facility are secured by a senior first priority security interest in substantially all existing and after-acquired assets of Wright Medical Group N.V. and each Borrower.

Mortgages and Shareholder Debt
We have mortgages and other debt that had an outstanding balance of $2.5 million and $2.7 million at December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, respectively. The majority of this debt is mortgages that were acquired as a result of the assetsWright/Tornier merger. These mortgages are secured by an office building in Montbonnot, France and bear fixed annual interest rates of 2.55%-4.9%.
The shareholder debt acquired was the Company and certain specified existing and future subsidiariesresult of the Company. Additionally, the credit agreement includes a restriction on the Company’s ability to pay dividends. The Company was in compliance with all covenants as of December 29, 2013.

Also included in bank term debt is $0.9 million and $1.6 million related to capital leases at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively. See Note 14 for further details.

Shareholder Debt

In 2008 one of the Company’stransaction where a 51%-owned and consolidated subsidiariessubsidiary of legacy Tornier borrowed $2.2 million from a then-current member of the Company’slegacy Tornier board of directors, who iswas also a 49% owner of the consolidated subsidiary. This loan was used to partially fund the purchase of real estate in Grenoble, France, to be used as a manufacturing facility. Interest on the debt is variable basedvariable-based on the three-month Euro Libor rate plus 0.5% and has no stated term. The outstanding balance on this debt was $2.3$1.8 million and $2.2$2.0 million as of December 29, 201325, 2016 and December 30, 2012,27, 2015, respectively. The non-controlling interest in this subsidiary is deemed immaterial toSee Note 18 of the consolidated financial statements.

9. Retirementstatements for additional information regarding this related party transaction.

As of October 1, 2015, legacy Tornier had approximately $74 million in outstanding term debt and Postretirement Benefit Plans

The Company’s French subsidiary is required by French government regulations to offer$7 million in a plan to its employees that provides certain lump-sum retirement benefits. This plan qualifies asline of credit under a defined benefit retirement plan. The French regulations dopre-existing credit agreement. Upon completion of the Wright/Tornier merger, we terminated all commitments under this credit agreement and repaid approximately $81 million in outstanding indebtedness. We did not require fundingincur any early termination penalties in connection with such repayment and termination.


WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

Maturities
Aggregate annual maturities of this liability in advanceour current and as a result there are no plan assets associated with thisdefined-benefit plan. The Company has an unfunded liability of $2.8 million and $2.5 million recordedlong-term obligations at December 29, 201325, 2016, excluding capital lease obligations and the ABL Facility, are as follows (in thousands):
2017$2,587
2018490
2019204
2020587,650
2021395,000
Thereafter2,911
 $988,842
The table set forth above excludes amounts borrowed under the ABL Facility. As described previously, all outstanding loans under the ABL Facility will be due and payable in full on December 23, 2021 or earlier under certain specified circumstances as previously described.
As discussed in Note 7, we have acquired certain property and equipment pursuant to capital leases. At December 25, 2016, future minimum lease payments under capital lease obligations, together with the present value of the net minimum lease payments, are as follows (in thousands):
2017$2,294
20182,244
20192,164
20202,013
20211,720
Thereafter7,823
Total minimum payments18,258
Less amount representing interest(3,366)
Present value of minimum lease payments14,892
Current portion(1,360)
Long-term portion$13,532

10. Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI)
Other comprehensive income (OCI) includes certain gains and losses that under US GAAP are included in comprehensive income but are excluded from net income as these amounts are initially recorded as an adjustment to shareholders’ equity. Amounts in OCI may be reclassified to net income upon the occurrence of certain events.
Our 2014 OCI is comprised of foreign currency translation adjustments, unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities, and adjustments to our minimum pension liability. Our 2015 and 2016 OCI is comprised solely of foreign currency translation adjustments. Foreign currency translation adjustments are reclassified to net income upon sale or upon a complete or substantially complete liquidation of an investment in a foreign entity. Unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities are reclassified to net income if we sell the security before maturity or if the unrealized loss in a security is considered to be other-than-temporary.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

Changes in and reclassifications out of AOCI, net of tax, for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014, December 27, 2015, and December 30, 2012, respectively,25, 2016 were as follows (in thousands):
 Currency translation adjustment 
Unrealized
gain (loss) on
marketable securities
 
Minimum
pension
liability
adjustment
 Total
Balance December 31, 2013$17,610
 $(1) $344
 $17,953
Other comprehensive income loss, net of tax(17,840) 1
 
 (17,839)
Reclassification to CTA and minimum pension liability adjustment 1
2,628
 
 (344) 2,284
Balance December 31, 2014$2,398
 $
 $
 $2,398
Other comprehensive income loss, net of tax(12,882) 
 
 (12,882)
Balance December 27, 2015$(10,484) $
 $
 $(10,484)
Other comprehensive income loss, net of tax(8,977) 
 
 (8,977)
Balance December 25, 2016$(19,461) $
 $
 $(19,461)
___________________________
1
The balances of CTA and minimum pension liability adjustment within AOCI were written-off following the liquidation of our former Japanese subsidiary as part of the sale of our OrthoRecon business. This was recorded within the gain on the sale of the OrthoRecon business within results of discontinued operations.

11. Income Taxes
The components of our loss from continuing operations before income taxes are as follows (in thousands):
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
U.S.$(140,190) $(225,473) $(242,998)
Foreign 1
(38,150) (15,535) (3,832)
Loss from continuing operations before income taxes 1
$(178,340) $(241,008) $(246,830)
___________________________
1
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The components of our benefit for future obligations underincome taxes are as follows (in thousands):
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
Current provision (benefit):     
U.S.:     
Federal$(1,971) $
 $(48)
State(281) 255
 198
Foreign 1
3,860
 562
 1,674
Total current provision 1
1,608
 817
 1,824
Deferred (benefit) provision:     
U.S.:     
Federal1,244
 (1,450) (3,164)
State142
 (166) (1,411)
Foreign 1
(16,400) (2,853) (3,583)
Total deferred benefit 1
(15,014) (4,469) (8,158)
Total benefit for income taxes 1
$(13,406) $(3,652) $(6,334)
___________________________
1
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.
A reconciliation of the plan thatstatutory U.S. federal income tax rate to our effective income tax rate for continuing operations is included in other noncurrent liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. as follows:
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
Income tax benefit at statutory rate35.0 % 35.0 % 35.0 %
State income taxes2.9 % 3.7 % 1.8 %
Change in valuation allowance(32.6)% (36.5)% (15.9)%
CVR fair market value adjustment(1.7)% 1.1 % (17.7)%
Foreign income tax rate differential 1
3.3 % (0.9)% 0.2 %
Other, net0.6 % (0.7)% (0.8)%
Total 1
7.5 % 1.7 % 2.6 %
___________________________
1
The 2015 rates were revised to reflect the historical results of our Large Joints business within results from discontinued operations.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The government mandated discount rate increased from 2.8%significant components of our deferred income taxes as of December 30, 201225, 2016 and December 27, 2015 are as follows (in thousands):
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Deferred tax assets:   
Net operating loss carryforwards$333,282
 $289,715
General business credit carryforwards5,671
 6,121
Reserves and allowances158,834
 52,482
Share-based compensation expense20,818
 18,423
Convertible debt notes and conversion options28,437
 46,631
Other1,173
 6,720
Valuation allowance(479,404) (336,060)
    
Total deferred tax assets68,811
 84,032
    
Deferred tax liabilities:   
Depreciation10,055
 8,455
Intangible assets52,123
 58,266
Convertible notes bond hedges30,120
 49,826
Other2,565
 6,660
    
Total deferred tax liabilities94,863
 123,207
    
Net deferred tax liabilities$(26,052) $(39,175)
At December 25, 2016, we had net operating loss carryforwards for U.S. federal income tax purposes of approximately $793 million, of which approximately $8 million related to 3.0%equity compensation deductions, for which when realized, the resulting benefit will be credited to shareholders' equity. The federal net operating losses begin to expire in 2017 and extend through 2036. State net operating loss carryforwards at December 29, 2013,25, 2016 totaled approximately $761 million, which resultedbegin to expire in a $0.12017 and extend through 2036. Additionally, we had general business credit carryforwards of approximately $6 million, unrealized gain recorded as a component of other comprehensive loss for the year ended December 29, 2013. For the year ended December 30, 2012, the discount rate decreased from 4.7%which begin to 2.8%, which resultedexpire in a $0.9 million unrealized loss which was recorded as a component of other comprehensive loss. The related periodic benefit expense was immaterial in all periods presented.

10. Derivative Instruments

The Company’s operations outside the United States are significant. As a result, the Company has foreign exchange exposure on transactions denominated in currencies that are different than the functional currency in certain legal entities. Starting in 2012, the Company began entering into forward contracts to manage its exposure to foreign currency transaction gains (losses). As it relates to one of the Company’s U.S. operating entities, Tornier Inc., the Company has entered into forward contracts to manage the foreign currency exposures to the Euro. As it relates to the Company’s French operating entity, Tornier SAS, the Company has entered into forward contracts to manage the foreign currency exposure to the Australian Dollar, British Pound, Canadian Dollar, Japanese Yen, Swiss Franc2017 and U.S. Dollar. Forward contracts are recorded on the consolidated balance sheet at fair value.extend through 2036. At December 29, 2013, the Company25, 2016, we had foreign currency forward contracts outstanding with a fair valuenet operating loss carryforwards of $0.2approximately $105 million, recorded within other current assets on the consolidated balance sheet. These contracts are accounted for as economic hedges$49 million of which do not expire and accordingly, changes$56 million which begin to expire in fair value are recognized in earnings. The net gain (loss) on foreign exchange forward contracts is recognized in foreign currency transaction gain (loss). For the years ended2017 and extend through 2029.

At December 29, 201325, 2016 and December 30, 2012, the Company recognized gains27, 2015, we had a valuation allowance of $0.4$479 million and $0.3$336 million, respectively, related to these forward currency contracts.

11. Income Taxes

The components of earnings (loss) before taxes forcertain U.S. and foreign deferred tax assets. Our December 27, 2015 valuation allowance balance includes approximately $56 million allocated from the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, consist of the following (in thousands):

   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
  January 1,
2012
 

United States loss

  $(33,204 $(19,858 $(2,631

Rest of the world loss

   (873  (12,821  (36,249
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Loss before taxes

  $(34,077 $(32,679 $(38,880
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

The income tax benefit (provision) for the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, consists of the following (in thousands):

   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
  January 1,
2012
 

Current (provision) benefit:

    

United States

  $(94 $(150 $(327

Rest of the world

   (3,513  (2,523  (3,140

Deferred (provision) benefit

   1,258    13,608    11,891  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total income tax (provision) benefit

  $(2,349 $10,935   $8,424  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

A reconciliation of the U.S. statutory income tax ratepreliminary purchase consideration with respect to the Company’s effective tax rate for the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, is as follows:

   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
  January 1,
2012
 

Income tax provision at U.S. statutory rate

   34.0  34.0  34.0

Release of valuation allowance

   3.3    32.8    —    

Change in valuation allowance

   (38.6  (33.4  (10.1

Tax benefit from disregarded entity

   1.8    1.7    6.4  

State and local taxes

   (4.7  2.6    (0.4

Tax deductible IPO costs

   2.0    1.7    —    

Other foreign taxes

   (3.5  (3.5  (2.0

Unrecognized interest deduction

   —      —      (0.5

Contingent consideration adjustment to market value

   4.1    —      —    

Stock option cancellation

   (8.1  

Impact of foreign income tax rates

   2.1    (2.5  (6.9

Non-deductible expenses

   (1.1  (1.8  (0.6

Other

   1.8    1.9    1.7  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total

   (6.9)%   33.5  21.6
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. The Company has established valuation allowances for deferred tax assets when the amount of expected future taxable income is not likely to support the use of the deduction or credit.

The components of deferred taxes for the years ended December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, consist of the following (in thousands):

   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
 

Deferred tax assets:

   

Net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards

  $41,456   $27,924  

Inventory

   7,294    4,960  

Exchange rate changes

   102    223  

Stock options

   7,082    9,715  

Accruals and other provisions

   6,161    5,067  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total deferred tax assets

   62,095    47,889  

Less: valuation allowance

   (40,441  (30,011
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total deferred tax assets after valuation allowance

   21,654    17,878  

Deferred tax liabilities:

   

Intangible assets

   (33,553  (33,248

Depreciation

   (3,342  (2,033
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total deferred tax liabilities

   (36,895  (35,281
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total net deferred tax liabilities

  $(15,241 $(17,403
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

In 2012, in connectionmerger with the acquisition of OrthoHelix, the Company recorded deferred tax liabilities of $11.9 million, which included $10.7 million related to amortizable intangible assets and $1.2 million related to indefinite-lived acquired in-process research and development. The deferred tax liabilities of $10.7 million related to the amortizable intangibles reduces the Company’s net deferred tax assets by a like amount and in a manner that provides predictable future taxable income over the asset amortization period.Tornier. As a result of the Companyfinalization of the valuation of acquired intangible assets by tax jurisdiction with respect to the merger, we reduced its pre-acquisition deferred tax assetour valuation allowance in 2012 by $10.7 million, which has been reflected as an income tax benefit in the consolidated statements of operations. Although the deferred tax liability of $1.2 million related to acquired in-process research and development also reduces the net deferred tax assets by a like amount, it does so in a manner that does not provide predictable future taxable income because the related asset is indefinite-lived. Therefore, the deferred tax asset valuation allowance was not reduced as a result of this item.

The Company had $40.4 million, $30.0 million and $29.8 million of valuation allowance recorded at December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively. If any amounts of valuation allowance reverse, the reversals would be recognized in the income tax provision in the period of reversal. The Companyapproximately $6 million. We recognized income tax expense from valuation allowance increases of $10.4 million (anfor an increase in the valuation allowance of $11.5 million netted against a $1.1 million reversal of valuation allowance from the OrthoHelix acquisition), $0.2 million (an increase in the valuation allowance of $10.9 million netted against a $10.7 million reversal of valuation allowance from the OrthoHelix acquisition) and $2.9$149 million during the yearsyear ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, primarily related to additional net operating losses and an increase in deferred tax assets associated with reserves and allowances incurred in the United States. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during the periods in which those temporary differences become deductible. Management considers the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities (including the impact of available carryback and carryforward periods), projected future taxable income, and tax planning strategies in making this assessment. Based upon the levels of historical taxable income, projections of future taxable income and the reversal of deferred tax liabilities over the periods in which the deferred tax assets are deductible, management believes it is more likely than not that we will realize the benefits of these deductible differences, net of the existing valuation allowance.

It is our current practice and intention to reinvest the earnings of our subsidiaries in those operations. Therefore, we do not provide for deferred taxes on the excess of the financial reporting over the tax basis in our investments in subsidiaries that are essentially permanent in duration. We would recognize a deferred income tax liability if we were to determine that such earnings are no longer indefinitely reinvested. At December 30, 201225, 2016, undistributed earnings of our U.S. controlled foreign subsidiaries amounted to approximately $10 million. Due to the number of tax jurisdictions involved and January 1, 2012, respectively.

Net operating loss carryforwards totaling approximately $128.8 million at December 29, 2013,the complexity of which $82.0 million relatesour legal entity structure, the complexity of the tax laws in the relevant jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, the rules pertaining to the utilization of foreign tax credits in the United States and $50.0 million relates to jurisdictions outside the United States, are available to reduce future taxable earnings of the Company’s consolidated U.S. subsidiaries and certain European subsidiaries, respectively. These net operating loss carryforwards include $6.0 million with no expiration date; the remaining carryforwards have expiration dates between 2015 and 2033.

The Company has recorded a long-term income tax liability of approximately $3.1 million and $2.6 million at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively, related to uncertain tax positions from unclosed tax years in certain of its subsidiaries. These amounts represent the Company’s best estimate of the potential additional tax liability related to these uncertain positions. To the extent that the results of any future tax audits differ from the Company’s estimate, the impact of projections of income for future years to all calculations, we believe it is not


WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

practicable to estimate the amount of additional taxes which may be payable upon distribution of these differences willearnings, however it is not expected to be reported as adjustments to incomesignificant.
As of December 25, 2016, our unrecognized tax expense.

benefits totaled approximately $8 million. The total amount of net unrecognized tax benefits that, if recognized, would affect the tax rate was $6.4approximately $3 million at December 29, 2013. The Company files25, 2016. Our 2014 U.S. federal income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and in various U.S. state and foreign jurisdictions. The Companyreturn is not currently under examination by any U.S. federal, state, or non-U.S.the Internal Revenue Service. It is, therefore, reasonably possible that our unrecognized tax authorities. If any examinations were initiated,benefits could change in the Company would not expectnext twelve months as a result of settlements with taxing authorities as well as expirations of the resultsstatutes of these examinations to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements in future years.

limitations.

A reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of the total amountsamount of unrecognized tax benefits is as follows (in thousands):

Gross unrecognized tax benefits at January 1, 2012

  $5,232  
  

 

 

 

Increase for tax positions in prior years

   2,282  

Decrease for tax positions in prior years

   —    

Increase for tax positions in current year

   306  

Foreign currency translation

   89  
  

 

 

 

Gross unrecognized tax benefits at December 30, 2012

  $7,909  
  

 

 

 

Increase for tax positions in prior years

   58  

Decrease for tax positions in prior years

   —    

Settlements

   (2,094

Increase for tax positions in current year

   307  

Foreign currency translation

   236  
  

 

 

 

Gross unrecognized tax benefits at December 29, 2013

  $6,416  
  

 

 

 

Balance at December 28, 2015$9,941
Additions for tax positions related to current year407
Additions for tax positions of prior years721
Reductions for tax positions of prior years(2,657)
Settlements(74)
Foreign currency translation(243)
Balance at December 25, 2016$8,095
We accrue interest required to be paid by the tax law for the underpayment of taxes on the difference between the amount claimed or expected to be claimed on the tax return and the tax benefit recognized in the financial statements. Management has made the policy election to record this interest as interest expense and penalties, that if incurred, would be recognized as penalty expense within "Other expense (income)" on our consolidated statements of operations. As of December 25, 2016, accrued interest and penalties related to our unrecognized tax benefits totaled approximately $0.2 million.
We file numerous consolidated and separate company income tax returns in the United States and in many foreign jurisdictions. We are no longer subject to foreign income tax examinations by tax authorities in significant jurisdictions for years before 2007. With few exceptions, we are subject to U.S. federal, state, and local income tax examinations for years 2013 through 2015. However, tax authorities have the ability to review years prior to these to the extent that we utilize tax attributes carried forward from those prior years.
12. Other Balance Sheet Information
Other long-term liabilities consist of the following (in thousands):
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Product liability reserves (Note 16)
$21,605
 $13,990
Notes Conversion Derivatives (Note 6)
239,523
 139,547
Contingent consideration and CVRs (Note 6)
37,918
 29,858
Other22,201
 25,179
 $321,247
 $208,574

Accrued expenses and other current liabilities consist of the following (in thousands):
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Employee bonuses$28,791
 $27,515
Other employee benefits 1
20,383
 21,366
Royalties 1
8,534
 11,676
Taxes other than income19,559
 18,895
Commissions16,891
 15,196
Professional and legal fees11,031
 21,048
Contingent consideration (Note 6)
1,330
 792
Product liability and other legal accruals (Note 16)
264,827
 16,630
Other36,358
 38,053
 $407,704
 $171,171
1
The prior period amounts have been adjusted to reflect balances associated with our Large Joints business, as these amounts were classified as held for sale at December 27, 2015 (See Note 4).
13. Capital Stock and Earnings Per Share

The Company

We are authorized to issue up to 320 million ordinary shares, each share with a par value of three Euro cents (€0.03). We had 48.5103.4 million and 41.7102.7 million ordinary shares issued and outstanding as of December 29,25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, respectively. As discussed in Note 3, the Wright/Tornier merger completed on October 1, 2015 has been accounted for as a “reverse acquisition” under US GAAP. As such, legacy Wright was considered the acquiring entity for accounting purposes; and therefore, legacy Wright’s historical results of operations replaced legacy Tornier’s historical results of operations for all periods prior to the merger. Additionally, each legacy Wright share was converted into the right to receive 1.0309 ordinary shares of the combined company and the par value was revised to reflect the €0.03 par value as compared to the legacy Wright par value of $0.01. As a result of the 2015 share conversion, the following amounts have been restated:
ordinary shares and APIC balances for the 2013 and 2014 periods included within the statements of shareholders' equity;
2014 earnings per share and weighted average ordinary shares outstanding on the statements of operations;
2014 weighted average ordinary shares outstanding below;
2014 impact of share-based compensation on earnings per share in Note 14; and
quarterly earnings per share and weighted average ordinary shares outstanding for the first, second and third quarters of 2015 as presented in Note 19.
FASB ASC Topic 260, Earnings Per Share, requires the presentation of basic and diluted earnings per share. Basic earnings per share is calculated based on the weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share is calculated to include any dilutive effect of our ordinary share equivalents. For the fiscal years ended December 30, 2012, respectively.

In 2013,25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, our ordinary share equivalents consisted of stock options, restricted stock units, and warrants. For the Company completed a secondary offeringfiscal year ended December 31, 2014, our ordinary share equivalents consisted of stock options, restricted stock awards, restricted stock units, and warrants. The dilutive effect of the stock options, restricted stock awards, restricted stock units, and warrants is calculated using the treasury-stock method. Net-share settled warrants on the 2020 Notes and 2021 Notes were anti-dilutive for the issuance of 5,175,000 shares of common stock that resulted in net proceeds toyears ended December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015. Net-share settled warrants on the Company of $78.7 million.

The Company2017 Notes were anti-dilutive for the year ended December 31, 2014.

We had outstanding options to purchase 2.6 million, 3.8 million and 4.210.4 million ordinary shares at December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively. The Company also had 0.6 million, 0.4 million and 0.21.3 million restricted stock units outstanding at December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively. Outstanding options to purchase25, 2016, 9.9 million ordinary shares and 1.1 million restricted stock units representing an aggregateat December 27, 2015, and 4.3 million ordinary shares and 0.3 million restricted stock units and restricted stock awards at December 31, 2014. None of 3.2 million, 4.2 million and 4.4 million shares are notthe options, restricted stock units, or restricted stock awards were included in diluted earnings per share for the years ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, December 30, 201227, 2015, and January 1, 2012, respectively,December 31, 2014 because the Companywe recorded a net loss infor all periodsperiods; and therefore, including these instruments would be anti-dilutive.

13. Segment


WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding for basic and Geographic Data

The Company has one reportable segment, orthopaedic products, which includes the design, manufacture, marketing and sales of joint implants and other related products. The Company’s geographic regions consist of the United States, France and other international areas. Long-lived assets are those assets located in each region. Revenues attributed to each region are based on the location in which the products were sold.

Revenue by geographic regiondiluted earnings per share purposes is as follows (in thousands):

   Year Ended 
   December 29, 2013   December 30, 2012   January 1, 2012 

Revenue by geographic region:

      

United States

  $182,104    $156,750    $141,496  

France

   58,173     52,737     55,438  

Other international

   70,682     68,033     64,257  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

  $310,959    $277,520    $261,191  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Revenue

 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
Weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding — basic1
102,968
 64,808
 51,293
Ordinary share equivalents
 
 
Weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding — diluted1
102,968
 64,808
 51,293
1
During 2015, the 2014 balances were converted to meet post-merger valuations as described above.
14. Share-Based Compensation
We currently have two share-based compensation plans under which share-based awards may be granted - the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan and the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan, which are described below. In addition, we have several legacy Wright and legacy Tornier share-based compensation plans and agreements under which stock options are outstanding, but no future share-based awards may be granted.
Amounts recognized in the consolidated financial statements with respect to share-based compensation are as follows:
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
Total cost of share-based payment plans$14,406
 $24,716
 $11,287
Amounts capitalized into inventory(416) (51) (66)
Amortization of capitalized amounts426
 299
 266
Charged against income before income taxes14,416
 24,964
 11,487
Amount of related income tax benefit recognized in income
 
 
Impact to net loss from continuing operations$14,416
 $24,964
 $11,487
Impact to net loss from discontinued operations
 
 8,845
Impact to net loss$14,416
 $24,964
 $20,332
Impact to basic and diluted loss per share, continuing operations 1
$0.14
 $0.39
 $0.22
Impact to basic and diluted loss per share 1
$0.14
 $0.39
 $0.40
Weighted-average number of shares outstanding - basic and diluted 1
102,968
 64,808
 51,293
1
The prior year balances were converted to meet post-merger valuations as described in Note 13.
As of December 25, 2016, we had $40.6 million of total unrecognized share-based compensation cost related to unvested share-based compensation arrangements. This cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 3.0 years.
On October 1, 2015, all stock options, restricted stock units and restricted stock awards outstanding as of the effective time of the Wright/Tornier merger automatically vested, resulting in $14.2 million in share-based compensation expense. Upon this acceleration, 1.3 million stock options vested with a weighted-average exercise price of $25.53 per share, and 0.3 million restricted stock units and restricted stock awards vested with a weighted-average grant-date fair value of $26.30 per share.
During 2014, as part of the divestiture of our OrthoRecon business to MicroPort, we modified share-based compensation awards held by product categoryemployees assigned to MicroPort to accelerate vesting for unvested share-based compensation awards, as an incentive to induce each employee to accept and continue employment with MicroPort, contingent upon the closing of the sale. On January 12, 2014, all unvested share-based compensation awards held by these former 65 employees were vested, which was comprised of approximately 0.5 million unvested options with a weighted-average exercise price of $22.50 per share and 0.3 million restricted stock awards. The incremental cost associated with the modified share-based compensation totaled $8.8 million, and was recognized as a reduction to our gain realized on the sale of the OrthoRecon business in the first quarter of 2014. There were no outstanding stock options held by these former employees as of December 31, 2014.
Equity Incentive Plans

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan (the 2010 Plan), which is an amended and restated version of legacy Tornier's Tornier N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan, was approved by our shareholders on June 18, 2015 and became effective upon completion of the Wright/Tornier merger on October 1, 2015. The 2010 Plan authorizes us to grant a wide variety of share-based and cash-based awards, including incentive and non-qualified options, stock appreciation rights, stock grants, stock unit grants, cash-based awards, and other share-based awards. To date, only stock options and stock grants in the form of restricted stock units (RSUs) have been granted. Both types of awards generally have graded vesting periods of 3 or 4 years and the options expire 10 years after the grant date. Options are granted with exercise prices equal to the fair market value of our ordinary shares on the date of grant.
The 2010 Plan reserves for issuance a number of ordinary shares equal to the sum of (i) the number of ordinary shares available for grant under legacy Tornier's prior stock option plan as of February 2, 2011 (not including issued or outstanding shares granted pursuant to options under such plan as of such date); (ii) the number of ordinary shares forfeited upon the expiration, cancellation, forfeiture, cash settlement, or other termination following February 2, 2011 of an option outstanding as of February 2, 2011 under legacy Tornier's prior stock option plan; and (iii) 8,200,000 shares. As of December 25, 2016, 1,233,923 ordinary shares remained available for grant under the 2010 Plan, and there were 7,813,930 ordinary shares covering outstanding awards under such plan as of such date.
In addition to the legacy Tornier prior stock option plan mentioned above under which previously granted vested options remained outstanding as of December 25, 2016, there are two legacy Wright share-based compensation plans and four non-plan inducement option agreements under which previously granted vested options remained outstanding as of December 25, 2016, including the Wright Medical Group, Inc. Second Amended and Restated 2009 Equity Incentive Plan (the Legacy Wright 2009 Plan) and the Wright Medical Group, Inc. Fifth Amended and Restated 1999 Equity Incentive Plan. All of these plans and agreements were terminated with respect to future awards, and thus, no future share-based awards may be granted under any of these legacy plans and agreements.
No stock options or other share-based awards were granted under legacy Wright's share-based compensation plans during 2015 due to the pending Wright/Tornier merger. During 2014, legacy Wright granted 0.9 million stock options and 0.3 million restricted stock awards and restricted stock units to employees under the Legacy Wright 2009 Plan. All of the options issued under the Legacy Wright 2009 Plan expire after 10 years from the date of grant. All outstanding awards under the legacy Wright plans automatically vested on October 1, 2015 as a result of the Wright/Tornier merger; therefore, there are no restricted stock units or restricted stock awards outstanding at December 25, 2016 under these plans. However, there were 3,008,427 stock options outstanding as of December 25, 2016 under the legacy Wright plans.
Stock options
We estimate the fair value of stock options using the Black-Scholes valuation model. The Black-Scholes option-pricing model requires the input of estimates, including the expected life of stock options, expected stock price volatility, the risk-free interest rate and the expected dividend yield. Prior to the Wright/Tornier merger, the expected life of options was estimated based on historical option exercise and employee termination data. Post merger, the expected life of options was estimated based on the simplified method due to a lack of comparable, historical option exercise and employee termination data for the combined company. The expected stock price volatility assumption was estimated based upon historical volatility of our ordinary shares for both legacy Wright and legacy Tornier prior to October 1, 2015 and for the combined company after the Wright/Tornier merger. The risk-free interest rate was determined using U.S. Treasury rates where the term is consistent with the expected life of the stock options. Expected dividend yield is not considered as we have never paid dividends and have no plans of doing so in the future. We are required to estimate forfeitures at the time of grant and revise those estimates in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. We use historical data to estimate pre-vesting forfeitures and record share-based compensation expense only for those awards that are expected to vest. The fair value of stock options is amortized on a straight-line basis over the respective requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period.
The weighted-average grant date fair value of stock options granted to employees in 2016, 2015, and 2014 was $7.36 per share, $7.05 per share, and $9.98 per share, respectively. The fair value of each option grant is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model using the following assumptions:
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015 December 31, 2014
Risk-free interest rate1.1% - 1.4% 1.4% - 1.6% 1.5% - 1.8%
Expected option life6 years 6 years 6 years
Expected price volatility34% 33% 31%

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)


A summary of our stock option activity during 2016 is as follows:
 
Shares
(000’s)
 
Weighted-average exercise
price
 
Weighted-average remaining
contractual life
 
Aggregate intrinsic value*
($000’s)
Outstanding at December 27, 20158,950 $21.66
    
Granted1,870 21.16
    
Exercised(440) 19.23
    
Forfeited or expired(892) 21.38
    
Outstanding at December 25, 20169,488 $21.70
 7.0 $22,235
Exercisable at December 25, 20165,948 $22.18
 5.7 $13,698

*
The aggregate intrinsic value is calculated as the difference between the market value of our ordinary shares as of December 25, 2016 and the exercise price of the options. The market value as of December 25, 2016 was $23.31 per share, which is the closing sale price of our ordinary shares on December 23, 2016, the last trading day prior to December 25, 2016, as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market.
The total intrinsic value of options exercised during 2016, 2015, and 2014 was $2.1 million, $0.4 million, and $5.3 million, respectively.
A summary of our stock options outstanding and exercisable at December 25, 2016 is as follows (in(shares in thousands):

   Year Ended 
   December 29,
2013
   December 30,
2012
   January 1,
2012
 

Revenue by product type:

      

Upper extremity joints and trauma

  $184,457    $175,242    $164,064  

Lower extremity joints and trauma

   58,747     34,109     26,033  

Sports medicine and biologics

   14,752     15,526     14,779  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total extremities

   257,956     224,877     204,876  

Large joints and other

   53,003     52,643     56,315  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

  $310,959    $277,520    $261,191  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Long-lived tangible assets, including instruments

  Options outstanding Options exercisable
Range of exercise prices Number outstanding Weighted-average remaining
contractual life
 Weighted-average exercise
price
 Number exercisable Weighted-average exercise
price
$2.00 — $16.00 327
 3.5 $13.40
 327
 $13.40
$16.01 — $24.00 7,858
 7.4 20.95
 4,320
 20.99
$24.01 — $35.87 1,303
 5.7 28.32
 1,301
 28.33
  9,488
 7.0 $21.70
 5,948
 $22.18

Restricted stock units and property, plantrestricted stock awards
We calculate the grant date fair value of restricted stock units and equipmentrestricted stock awards using the closing sale prices on the trading day of the grant date. We are required to estimate forfeitures at the time of grant and revise those estimates in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. We use historical data to estimate pre-vesting forfeitures and record share-based compensation expense only for those awards that are expected to vest.
During 2016 and 2015, we granted 0.7 million and 1.1 million restricted stock units to employees with weighted-average grant-date fair values of $21.17 and $20.60 per share, respectively. During 2014, we granted 0.3 million restricted stock units and restricted stock awards to employees with a weighted-average grant-date fair value of $30.04. The fair value of the unvested restricted stock units granted after completion of the Wright/Tornier merger will be recognized on a straight-line basis over the respective requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period.
During 2016, we did not grant any restricted stock units to non-employees (other than non-employee directors who received such grants in consideration of their director service). During 2015 and 2014, we granted a negligible amount of restricted stock awards to non-employees.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

A summary of our restricted stock unit activity during 2016 is as follows:
 
Shares
(000’s)
 
Weighted-average
grant-date
fair value
 
Aggregate
intrinsic value*
($000’s)
Unvested at December 27, 20151,133
 $20.63
  
Granted706
 21.17
  
Vested(298) 20.63
  
Forfeited(206) 20.70
  
Unvested at December 25, 20161,335
 $20.91
 $31,112
___________________
*
The aggregate intrinsic value is calculated as the market value of our ordinary shares as of December 25, 2016. The market value as of December 25, 2016 was $23.31 per share, which is the closing sale price of our ordinary shares on December 23, 2016, the last trading day prior to December 25, 2016, as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market.
The total fair value of shares vested during 2016, 2015, and 2014 was $7.0 million, $11.8 million, and $5.4 million, respectively.
Inducement Stock Options
On occasion, legacy Wright granted stock options under an inducement stock option agreement, in order to induce candidates to commence employment with legacy Wright as a member of the executive management team. These options vested over a service period ranging from three to four years. All of the options issued under this agreement will expire after 10 years from the date of grant.
A summary of our inducement grant stock option activity during 2016 is as follows:
 
Shares
(000’s)
 
Weighted-average exercise
price
 
Weighted-average remaining
contractual life
 
Aggregate intrinsic value*
($000’s)
Outstanding at December 27, 2015917
 $16.69
    
Granted
 
    
Exercised
 
    
Forfeited or expired
 
    
Outstanding at December 25, 2016917
 $16.69
 5.0 $6,071
Exercisable at December 25, 2016917
 $16.69
 5.0 $6,071

*The aggregate intrinsic value is calculated as the difference between the market value of ordinary shares as of December 25, 2016 and the exercise price of the shares. The market value as of December 25, 2016 was $23.31 per share, which is the closing sale price of our ordinary shares on December 23, 2016, the last trading day prior to December 25, 2016, as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market.
A summary of our inducement grant stock options outstanding and exercisable at December 25, 2016, is as follows (in(shares in thousands):

   December 29,
2013
   December 30,
2012
   January 1,
2012
 

Long-lived assets:

      

United States

  $40,032    $31,342    $25,221  

France

   45,909     39,764     40,564  

Other international

   20,608     17,439     16,915  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

  $106,549    $88,545    $82,700  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

14.

  Options outstanding Options exercisable
Range of exercise prices Number outstanding Weighted-average remaining
contractual life
 Weighted-average exercise
price
 Number exercisable Weighted-average exercise
price
$2.00 — $16.00 696
 7.80 $15.57
 696
 $15.57
$16.01 — $35.87 221
 5.80 20.22
 221
 20.22
  917
 3.00 $16.69
 917
 $16.69
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
The Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the ESPP), which is an amended and restated version of the Tornier N.V. 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, was approved by our shareholders on June 28, 2016. Under the ESPP, we are authorized to issue and sell up to the sum of (i) 333,333 ordinary shares registered previously under the Tornier N.V. 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and (ii) 216,227 additional ordinary shares approved under the ESPP. The total of 550,000 ordinary shares are authorized to be issued to employees of our company and certain designated subsidiaries who work

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

at least 20 hours per week. Under the ESPP, there are two six-month plan periods during each calendar year, one beginning January 1 and ending on June 30, and the other beginning July 1 and ending on December 31. However the compensation committee of the board of directors determined that the first plan period would be the three months beginning October 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2016. Under the terms of the ESPP, each eligible employee can choose each offering period to have up to 20% of his or her eligible earnings withheld to purchase up to 1,000 of our ordinary shares. The purchase price of the shares is 85% of the market price on the first or last trading day of the offering period, whichever is lower. As of December 25, 2016, there were 502,512 ordinary shares available for future issuance under the ESPP.
Under the ESPP, the first plan purchase occurred on December 31, 2016 during the 2017 fiscal year. During 2016, we accrued a nominal amount of non-cash, share-based compensation expense related to the ESPP for the first plan purchase.
In applying the Black-Scholes methodology to purchase rights granted under the ESPP, we used the following assumptions:
Fiscal year ended
December 25, 2016
Risk-free interest rate1.2% - 1.3%
Expected option life3 months
Expected price volatility33%
Legacy Wright also had a similar employee stock purchase plan (the Legacy Wright ESPP), under which its employees could choose each offering period to have up to 5% of his or her earnings, limited to $5,000, withheld to purchase WMG common stock. The purchase price of the stock was 85% of the lower of its beginning-of-period or end-of-period market price. Legacy Wright terminated the Legacy Wright ESPP after the completion of the second half of 2014 offering period due to the then pending Wright/Tornier merger; and therefore, as of December 27, 2015, there were no shares available for future issuance under the Legacy Wright ESPP.
Under the Legacy Wright ESPP, legacy Wright sold to employees approximately 22,000 shares of WMG common stock in 2014 with weighted-average fair value of $8.18 per share. During 2014, we recorded a nominal amount of non-cash, share-based compensation expense related to the Legacy Wright ESPP.
In applying the Black-Scholes methodology to the purchase rights granted under the Legacy Wright ESPP, we used the following assumptions:
Fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014
Risk-free interest rate0.3% - 0.6%
Expected option life6 months
Expected price volatility31%

15. Retirement Benefit Plans
During the year ended December 25, 2016, we consolidated our retirement benefit plans into one defined contribution plan. Prior to this change, we offered one plan sponsored by legacy Wright and another sponsored by legacy Tornier.
Our defined contribution plan under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code), covers U.S. employees who are 18 years of age and over. Under this plan, we have elected to make matching contributions to all eligible participants in an amount equal to 100% of the first three percent of eligible compensation, and 50% of the next two percent of eligible compensation, contributed to the Plan as deferral contributions.  Employees are 100% vested in their rollover contributions, employer nonelective contributions, employer matching contributions, qualified nonelective contributions, deferral contributions, safe harbor matching employer contributions and any earnings thereon. The expense related to this plan recognized within our results from continuing operations was $4.9 million in 2016.
Expense related to the Legacy Wright defined contribution plan recognized within our results from continuing operations was $2.5 million in 2015 and $1.6 million in 2014.
Expense related to the Legacy Tornier qualified defined contribution plan recognized within our results from continuing operations was $0.2 million in 2015.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

16. Commitments and Contingencies
Operating Leases

Future minimum rental commitments

We lease certain equipment and office space under non-cancelable operating leases. Rental expense under operating leases in effect as of December 29, 2013 are as follows (in thousands):

2014

  $5,410  

2015

   4,500  

2016

   3,535  

2017

   3,286  

2018

   3,050  

Thereafter

   8,362  
  

 

 

 

Total

  $28,143  
  

 

 

 

Operating leases include copiers, automobilesapproximated $10.5 million, $8.6 million, and property leases and have maturity dates between 2014 and 2022. Total rent expense$7.1 million for the years ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, December 30, 201227, 2015, and January 1, 2012 was $5.8 million, $4.8 millionDecember 31, 2014, respectively. Future minimum payments, by year and $4.0 million, respectively.

Futurein the aggregate, under non-cancelable operating leases with initial or remaining lease payments under capital leasesterms of one year or more, are as follows at December 25, 2016 (in thousands):

2014

  $461  

2015

   269  

2016

   114  

2017

   70  
  

 

 

 

Total minimum lease payments

   914  

Less amount representing interest

   (67
  

 

 

 

Present value of minimum lease payments

   847  

Current portion

   (448
  

 

 

 

Long-term portion

  $399  
  

 

 

 

Fixed

2017$9,740
20187,823
20195,596
20204,106
20213,528
Thereafter8,295
 $39,088
Portions of our payments for operating leases are denominated in foreign currencies and were translated in the table above based on their respective U.S. dollar exchange rates at December 25, 2016. These future payments are subject to foreign currency exchange rate risk.
Purchase Obligations
We have entered into certain supply agreements for our products which include minimum purchase obligations. As of December 25, 2016, we have minimum purchase obligations of $1.5 million and $3 million for 2017 and 2018, respectively.
Legal Contingencies
The legal contingencies described in this footnote relate primarily to Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (WMT), an indirect subsidiary of Wright Medical Group N.V., and are not necessarily applicable to Wright Medical Group N.V. or other affiliated entities. Maintaining separate legal entities within our corporate structure is intended to ring-fence liabilities.  We believe our ring-fenced structure should preclude corporate veil-piercing efforts against entities whose assets are not associated with particular claims.
As described below, our business is subject to various contingencies, including patent and other litigation, product liability claims, and a government inquiry.  These contingencies could result in losses, including damages, fines, or penalties, any of which could be substantial, as well as criminal charges. Although such matters are inherently unpredictable, and negative outcomes or verdicts can occur, we believe we have significant defenses in all of them, and are vigorously defending all of them. However, we could incur judgments, pay settlements, or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of any matter. Such developments, if any, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which applicable amounts are accrued, or on our cash flows in the period in which amounts are paid, however, unless otherwise indicated, we do not believe any of them will have a material adverse effect on our financial position.
Our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss or the measurement of a loss can be complex. We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued.  Our assessment process relies on estimates and assumptions that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate. Unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that could cause us to change our estimates and assumptions.
Governmental Inquiries
On August 3, 2012, we received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee requesting records and documentation relating to our PROFEMUR® series of hip replacement devices. The subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2000 to August 2, 2012. We continue to cooperate with the investigation.
Patent Litigation
In June 2013, Anglefix, LLC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging that our ORTHOLOC® products infringe Anglefix’s asserted patent. On April 14, 2014, we filed a request for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In October 2014, the Court stayed the case pending outcome of the IPR. On June 30, 2015, the Patent Office Board entered judgment in our favor as to all patent claims at issue in the IPR. Following the conclusion of the IPR, the District Court lifted the stay, and we have been continuing with our defense as to remaining patent claims asserted by Anglefix. On June 27, 2016, the Court granted in part our motion for summary judgment on Anglefix’s lack of standing and

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

gave Anglefix 30 days to join the University of North Carolina (UNC) as a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. On July 25, 2016, Anglefix filed a motion asking the Court to accept a waiver of claims by UNC as a substitute for joining UNC as a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Court denied Anglefix’s motion, but granted leave for additional time to properly join UNC as co-plaintiff. Anglefix moved to add UNC as co-plaintiff on September 15, 2016. We opposed the motion and, on November 15, 2016, the Court allowed the motion, and subsequently directed Anglefix and UNC to file an amended complaint by January 18, 2017. We have filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the remaining patent claims asserted by Anglefix and a motion to exclude testimony by Anglefix’s technical expert. Anglefix has filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement of certain of the remaining asserted patent claims. The Court heard oral argument on those motions on January 31, 2017.
On September 23, 2014, Spineology filed a patent infringement lawsuit, Case No. 0:14-cv-03767, in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, alleging that our X-REAM® bone reamer infringes U.S. Patent No. RE42,757 entitled “EXPANDABLE REAMER.”  In January 2015, on the deadline for service of its complaint, Spineology dismissed its complaint without prejudice and filed a new, identical complaint. We filed an answer to the new complaint with the Court on April 27, 2015. The Court conducted a Markman hearing on March 23, 2016. Mediation was held on August 11, 2016, but no agreement could be reached. The Court issued a Markman decision on August 30, 2016, in which it found all asserted product claims invalid as indefinite under applicable patent laws and construed several additional claim terms. The parties have completed fact and expert discovery with respect to the remaining asserted method claims. We have filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the remaining asserted patent claims and motions to exclude testimony from Spineology’s technical and damages experts. Spineology has filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement. The Court will hear oral argument on those motions on February 28, 2017.
On September 13, 2016, we filed a civil action, Case No. 2:16-cv-02737-JPM, against Spineology in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty against infringement, and seeking a judicial declaration of indemnification from Spineology for patent infringement claims brought against us stemming from our sale and/or use of certain expandable reamers purchased from Spineology. Spineology filed a motion to dismiss on October 17, 2016, but withdrew the motion on November 28, 2016. On December 7, 2016, Spineology filed an answer to our complaint and counterclaims, including counterclaims relating to a 2004 non-disclosure agreement between Spineology and WMT. On December 28, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims relating to that 2004 agreement. On January 4, 2017, Spineology filed a motion for summary judgment on certain claims set forth in our complaint. We intend to oppose this motion.
On March 1, 2016, Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation (MTF) filed suit against Solana and WMT in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the TenFUSE PIP product infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,432,436 entitled “Partially Demineralized Cortical Bone Constructs.” On May 25, 2016, we agreed to waive service of MTF’s complaint. Following a series of court-ordered extensions of time, we filed our answer to MTF’s complaint and counterclaims on December 5, 2016. We have reached a settlement in principle with MTF for an immaterial amount, which is in the process of being documented.
Subject to the provisions of the asset purchase agreement with MicroPort for the sale of the OrthoRecon business, we, as between us and MicroPort, would continue to be responsible for defense of pre-existing patent infringement cases relating to the OrthoRecon business, and for resulting liabilities, if any. All such pre-existing cases have been resolved.
Product Liability
We have received claims for personal injury against us associated with fractures of our PROFEMUR® long titanium modular neck product (PROFEMUR® Claims). As of December 25, 2016, there were 26 pending U.S. lawsuits and 48 pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims. The overall fracture rate for the product is low and the fractures appear, at least in part, to relate to patient demographics. Beginning in 2009, we began offering a cobalt-chrome version of our PROFEMUR® modular neck, which has greater strength characteristics than the alternative titanium version. Historically, we have reflected our liability for these claims as part of our standard product liability accruals on a case-by-case basis. However, during the quarter ended September 30, 2011, as a result of an increase in the number and monetary amount of these claims, management estimated our liability to patients in North America who have previously required a revision following a fracture of a PROFEMUR® long titanium modular neck, or who may require a revision in the future. Management has estimated that this aggregate liability ranges from approximately $21.9 million to $25.9 million. Any claims associated with this product outside of North America, or for any other products, will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis.
Due to the uncertainty within our aggregate range of loss resulting from the estimation of the number of claims and related monetary payments, we have recorded a liability of $21.9 million, which represents the low-end of our estimated aggregate range of loss. We have classified $14.2 million of this liability as capital lease assets consistcurrent in “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities,” as we expect to pay such claims within the next twelve months, and $7.7 million as non-current in “Other liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet. We expect to pay the majority of machinerythese claims within the next three years.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

We are aware that MicroPort has recalled certain sizes of its cobalt chrome modular neck products as a result of alleged fractures. As of December 25, 2016, there were three pending U.S. lawsuits and equipment,five pending non-U.S. lawsuits against us alleging personal injury resulting from the fracture of a cobalt chrome modular neck. These claims will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis.
We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a claims-made basis. During the quarter ended March 31, 2013, we received a customary reservation of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier asserting that present and future claims related to fractures of our PROFEMUR®titanium modular neck hip products and which allege certain types of injury (Titanium Modular Neck Claims) would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position would be to place Titanium Modular Neck Claims into a single prior policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. Management agrees with the assertion that the Titanium Modular Neck Claims should be treated as a single occurrence, but notified the carrier that it disputed the carrier's selection of available policy years. During the second quarter of 2013, we received confirmation from the primary carrier confirming their agreement with our policy year determination. Based on our insurer's treatment of Titanium Modular Neck Claims as a single occurrence, we increased our estimate of the total probable insurance recovery related to Titanium Modular Neck Claims by $19.4 million, and recognized such additional recovery as a reduction to our selling, general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2013, within results of discontinued operations. In the quarter ended June 30, 2013, we received payment from the primary insurance carrier of $5 million. In the quarter ended September 30, 2013, we received payment of $10 million from the next insurance carrier in the tower. We have requested, but not yet received, payment of the remaining $25 million from the third insurance carrier in the tower for that policy period. The policies with the second and third carrier in this tower are “follow form” policies and management believes the third carrier should follow the coverage position taken by the primary and secondary carriers. On September 29, 2015, that third carrier asserted that the terms and conditions identified in its reservation of rights will preclude coverage for the Titanium Modular Neck Claims. We strongly dispute the carrier's position and, in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of the policy, have initiated an arbitration proceeding in London, England seeking payment of these funds. Pursuant to applicable accounting standards, we reduced our insurance receivable balance for this claim to $0, and recorded a carrying$25 million charge within "Net loss from discontinued operations" during the year ended December 27, 2015. The arbitration proceeding is ongoing.
Claims for personal injury have also been made against us associated with our metal-on-metal hip products (primarily our CONSERVE® product line). The pre-trial management of certain of these claims has been consolidated in the federal court system, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under multi-district litigation (MDL) and certain other claims by the Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP) in state court in Los Angeles County, California (collectively the Consolidated Metal-on-Metal Claims).
As of December 25, 2016, there were approximately 1,200 lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an additional 30 cases pending in various state courts. As of that date, we have also entered into approximately 950 so called "tolling agreements" with potential claimants who have not yet filed suit. Based on presently available information, we believe at least 350 of these lawsuits allege claims involving bilateral implants. As of December 25, 2016, there were also approximately 50 non-U.S. lawsuits pending. We believe we have data that supports the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip products. While continuing to dispute liability, we have participated in court supervised non-binding mediation in the MDL and expect to begin similar mediation in the JCCP.
Every metal-on-metal hip case involves fundamental issues of law, science and medicine that often are uncertain, that continue to evolve, and which present contested facts and issues that can differ significantly from case to case. Such contested facts and issues include medical causation, individual patient characteristics, surgery specific factors, statutes of limitation, and the existence of actual, provable injury.
The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015, we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages awarded. On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order reducing the punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1 million, but otherwise denied our motion. On May 4, 2016, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments on January 26, 2017 and we are awaiting a decision of the Court. In light of the trial judge’s April 5th order, we recorded an accrual for this verdict in the amount of $2.1 million within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities.”

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

The first bellwether trial in the JCCP, which was scheduled to commence on October 31, 2016, and subsequently rescheduled to January 9, 2017, was settled for an immaterial amount.
The first state court metal-on-metal hip trial not part of the MDL or JCCP commenced on October 24, 2016, in St. Louis, Missouri. On November 3, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in our favor. The plaintiff has appealed.
On November 1, 2016, WMT entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the MDL and JCCP. Under the terms of the MSA, the parties agreed to settle 1,292 specifically identified claims associated with CONSERVE®, DYNASTY® and LINEAGE® products that meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or subject to court-approved tolling agreements in the MDL or JCCP, for a settlement amount of $240 million.
The $240 million settlement amount is a maximum settlement based on the pool of 1,292 specific, existing claims comprised of an identified mix of CONSERVE®, DYNASTY® and LINEAGE® products (Initial Settlement Pool), with a value assigned to each product type, resulting in a total settlement of $1.7$240 million ($2.5for the 1,292 claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. The actual settlement may be less, depending on several factors including the mix of products and claimants in the final settlement pool (Final Settlement Pool) and the number of claimants electing to “opt-out” of the settlement.
Actual settlements paid to individual claimants will be determined under the claims administration procedures contained in the MSA and may be more or less than the amounts used to calculate the $240 million grosssettlement for the 1,292 claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. However in no event will variations in actual settlement amounts payable to individual claimants affect WMT’s maximum settlement obligation of $240 million or the manner in which it may be reduced due to opt outs, final product mix, or elimination of ineligible claims.
If it is determined a claim in the Initial Settlement Pool is ineligible due to failure to meet the eligibility criteria of the MSA, such claim will be removed and, where possible, replaced with a new eligible claim involving the same product, with the goal of having the number and mix of claims in the Final Settlement Pool (before opt-outs) equal, as nearly as possible, the number and mix of claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. Additionally, if any DYNASTY® or LINEAGE® claims in the Final Settlement Pool are determined to have been misidentified as CONSERVE® claims, or vice versa, the total settlement amount will be adjusted based on the value less $0.8for each product type (not to exceed $240 million).
The MSA contains specific eligibility requirements and establishes procedures for proof and administration of claims, negotiation and execution of individual settlement agreements, determination of the final total settlement amount, and funding of individual settlement amounts by WMT. Eligibility requirements include, without limitation, that the claimant has a claim pending or tolled in the MDL or JCCP, that the claimant has undergone a revision surgery within eight years of the original implantation surgery, and that the claim has not been identified by WMT as having possible statute of limitation issues. Claimants who have had bilateral revision surgeries will be counted as two claims but only to the extent both claims separately satisfy all eligibility criteria.
The MSA includes a 95% opt-in requirement, meaning the MSA may be terminated by WMT prior to any settlement disbursement if claimants holding greater than 5% of eligible claims in the Final Settlement Pool elect to “opt-out” of the settlement. WMT, in its sole discretion, may waive this 95% opt-in requirement. No funding of any individual plaintiff settlement will occur until the 95% opt-in requirement has been satisfied or waived.
WMT has been notified pursuant to the MSA that greater than 95% of eligible claimants timely elected to opt-in to the MSA settlement prior to the opt-in deadline. Accordingly, the 95% minimum opt-in rate appears to have been satisfied, subject to WMT's audit rights under the MSA.
WMT has escrowed $150 million accumulated depreciation)to secure its obligations under the MSA. As additional security, Wright Medical Group N.V., the indirect parent company of WMT, agreed to guaranty WMT’s obligations under the MSA.
The MSA was entered into solely as a compromise of the disputed claims being settled and $2.6is not evidence that any claim has merit nor is it an admission of wrongdoing or liability by WMT. WMT will continue to vigorously defend metal-on-metal hip claims not settled pursuant to the MSA. As of December 25, 2016, we estimate there were approximately 630 outstanding metal-on-metal hip revision claims that would not be included in the MSA settlement, including approximately 200 claims with an implant duration of more than eight years, approximately 300 claims subject to possible statute of limitations preclusion, approximately 30 claims pending in U.S courts other than the MDL and JCCP, approximately 50 claims pending in non-U.S. courts, and approximately 50 claims that would be eligible for inclusion in the settlement but for the participation limitations contained in the MSA. We also estimate that there were approximately 650 outstanding metal-on-metal hip non-revision claims as of December 25, 2016. These non-revision cases are excluded from the MSA.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

As of December 25, 2016, our accrual for metal-on-metal claims totaled $256.6 million, ($3.4of which $242.7 million gross value, less $0.8 million accumulated depreciation) at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively. Amortization of capital lease assets is included in depreciation expenseour consolidated balance sheet within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities” and $13.9 million is included within “Other liabilities.”  Our accrual is based on (i) case by case accruals for specific cases where facts and circumstances warrant, including the $2.1 million accrual associated with the MDL bellwether verdict, and (ii) the implied settlement values for eligible claims under the MSA (assuming, in the absence of opt-in data, a 100% opt-in rate). We are unable to reasonably estimate the high-end of a possible range of loss for claims which may in the future elect to opt-out of the MSA settlement. Claims we can confirm would meet MSA eligibility criteria but are excluded from settlement due to the $240 million maximum settlement cap, or because they are state cases not part of the MDL or JCCP, have been accrued as though included in the settlement. Due to the general uncertainties surrounding all metal-on metal claims as noted above, as well as insufficient information about individual claims, we are presently unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss for revision claims that (i) do not meet MSA eligibility criteria, or (ii) are future claims; hence we have not accrued for these claims at the present time. However, we believe the high-end of a possible range of loss for existing revision claims that do not meet MSA eligibility criteria will not, on an average per case basis, exceed the average per case accrual we have taken for revision claims we can confirm do meet MSA eligibility criteria. Future claims will be evaluated for accrual on a case by case basis using the accrual methodologies described above (which could change if future facts and circumstances warrant).
We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a claims-made basis. During the quarter ended September 30, 2012, we received a customary reservation of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier asserting that certain present and future claims which allege certain types of injury related to our CONSERVE® metal-on-metal hip products (CONSERVE® Claims) would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position would be to place CONSERVE® Claims into a single prior policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. Management agrees that there is insurance coverage for the CONSERVE® Claims, but has notified the carrier that it disputes the carrier's characterization of the CONSERVE® Claims as a single occurrence.
In June 2014, St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Travelers), which was an excess carrier in our coverage towers across multiple policy years, filed a declaratory judgment action in Tennessee state court naming us and certain of our other insurance carriers as defendants and asking the court to rule on the rights and responsibilities of the parties with regard to the CONSERVE® Claims. Among other things, Travelers appeared to dispute our contention that the CONSERVE® Claims arise out of more than a single occurrence thereby triggering multiple policy periods of coverage.  Travelers further sought a determination as to the applicable policy period triggered by the alleged single occurrence.  We filed a separate lawsuit in state court in California for declaratory judgment against certain carriers and breach of contract against the primary carrier, and moved to dismiss or stay the Tennessee action on a number of grounds, including that California is the most appropriate jurisdiction. During the third quarter of 2014, the California Court granted Travelers' motion to stay our California action. On April 29, 2016, we filed a dispositive motion seeking partial judgment in our favor in the Tennessee action. That motion is pending, and will be decided after the parties complete discovery regarding certain issues relating to the pending motion. On June 10, 2016, Travelers withdrew its motion for summary judgment in the Tennessee action. One of the other insurance companies in the Tennessee action has stated that it will re-file a similar motion in the future.
On October 28, 2016, WMT and Wright Medical Group, Inc. (Wright Entities), entered into a Settlement Agreement, Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement and Policy Buyback Agreement (Insurance Settlement Agreement) with a subgroup of three insurance carriers, namely Columbia Casualty Company, Travelers and AXIS Surplus Lines Insurance Company (collectively, the Three Settling Insurers), pursuant to which the Three Settling Insurers agreed to pay WMT an aggregate of $60 million (in addition to $10 million previously paid by Columbia) in a lump sum on or before the 30th business day after execution of the Insurance Settlement Agreement. This amount is in full satisfaction of all potential liability of the Three Settling Insurers relating to metal-on-metal hip and similar metal ion release claims, including but not limited to all claims in the MDL and the JCCP, and all claims asserted by WMT against the Three Settling Insurers in the Tennessee action described above.
On December 13, 2016, we filed a motion in the Tennessee action described above to include allegations of bad faith against the primary insurance carrier.  The motion was subsequently amended on February 8, 2017 to add similar bad faith claims against the remaining excess carriers.  That motion is pending.
As part of the settlement, the Three Settling Insurers bought back from WMT their policies in the five policy years beginning with the August 15, 2007- August 15, 2008 policy year (Repurchased Policy Years). Consequently, the Wright Entities have no further coverage from the Three Settling Insurers for any present or future claims falling in the Repurchased Policy Years, or any other period in which a released claim is asserted. Additionally, the Insurance Settlement Agreement contains a so-called most favored nation provision which could require us to refund a pro rata portion of the settlement amount if we voluntarily enter into a settlement with the remaining carriers in the Repurchased Policy Years on certain terms more favorable than analogous terms in the Insurance

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

Settlement Agreement. The Tennessee action will continue as to the remaining defendant insurers other than the Three Settling Insurers. The amount due to the Wright Entities under the Insurance Settlement Agreement was paid in the fourth quarter of 2016.
Management has recorded an insurance receivable of $8.7 million for the probable recovery of spending from the remaining carriers (other than the Three Settling Carriers) in excess of our retention for a single occurrence. As of December 25, 2016 we have received $71.7 million of insurance proceeds, and our insurance carriers have paid a total of $4.6 million directly to claimants in connection with various settlements, which represents amounts undisputed by the carriers. Our acceptance of these proceeds was not a waiver of any other claim we may have against the insurance carriers. However, the amount we ultimately receive will depend on the outcome of our dispute with the remaining carriers (other than the Three Settling Carriers) concerning the number of policy years available. We believe our contracts with the insurance carriers are enforceable for these claims; and, therefore, we believe it is probable we will receive additional recoveries from the remaining carriers. Settlement discussions with the remaining insurance carriers continue.
Given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in these matters in excess of the amounts included in our accrual for contingencies could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. Future revisions to our estimates of these provisions could materially impact our results of operations and financial position. We use the best information available to determine the level of accrued product liabilities, and believe our accruals are adequate.
In June 2015, a jury returned a $4.4 million verdict against us in a case involving a fractured hip implant stem sold prior to the MicroPort closing.  This was a one-of-a-kind case unrelated to the modular neck fracture cases we have been reporting. There are no other cases pending related to this component, nor are we aware of other instances where this component has fractured. In September 2015, the trial judge reduced the jury verdict to $1.025 million and indicated that if the plaintiff did not accept the reduced award he would schedule a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff elected not to accept the reduced damage award, and both parties have appealed. The Court has not set a date for a new trial on the issue of damages and we do not expect it will do so until the appeals are adjudicated. We will maintain our current $4.4 million accrual as a probable liability until the matter is resolved. The $4.4 million probable liability associated with this matter is reflected within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities,” and a $4 million receivable associated with the probable recovery from product liability insurance is reflected within “Other current assets.”
Other
In addition to those noted above, we are subject to various other legal proceedings, product liability claims, corporate governance, and other matters which arise in the ordinary course of business.
17. Restricted Cash
During the fourth quarter of 2016, WMT deposited $150.0 million into a restricted escrow account to secure its obligations under the MSA that WMT entered into in connection with the metal-on-metal hip litigation, as further described in Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements. All individual settlements under the MSA will be funded first from the escrow account and then, if all funds held in the escrow account have been exhausted, directly by WMT. The claims administrator has not provided a funding request to WMT as of the date of the filing of this report. Funding requests may be submitted on the 15th and last day of each month, beginning March 31, 2017. Within 30 days of each funding request, unless WMT in good faith objects to the accuracy of any payment request, WMT will instruct the escrow agent to transfer funds from the restricted escrow account to a master account designated by plaintiffs’ counsel, who will then arrange for disbursements of individual settlement amounts. As of December 25, 2016, $150.0 million was in the restricted escrow account, and therefore, considered restricted cash under US GAAP. See Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements for further discussion regarding the MSA and the metal-on-metal hip litigation.
The following table provides a reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash reported within our consolidated balance sheets that sum to the totals of the same such amounts shown in the consolidated financial statements.

15.statements of cash flows (in thousands):

 December 25, 2016 December 27, 2015
Cash and cash equivalents$262,265
 $139,804
Restricted cash150,000
 
Total cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash shown in the consolidated statements of cash flows$412,265
 $139,804

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

18. Certain Relationships andRelated-Party Transactions

The Company leases allrelated party disclosures in this note relate to transactions with a former director of its approximately 55,000 square feetlegacy Tornier, Alain Tornier. Mr. Tornier departed from our board of manufacturing facilities and approximately 52,000 square feet of office space locateddirectors effective October 1, 2015 in Montbonnot, France, from Alain Tornier (Mr. Tornier), who is a current shareholder and memberconnection with the closing of the Company’s board of directors. AnnualWright/Tornier merger. Accordingly, the indebtedness and lease payments to Mr. Tornier amounted to $1.1 million, $1.6 million and $1.9 millionagreements described below are not related party transactions during the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively.

2016.

On July 29, 2008, the CompanyTornier SAS, a subsidiary of legacy Tornier, formed a real estate holding company (SCI Calyx) together with Mr. Tornier.Alain Tornier, a former director of legacy Tornier (Mr. Tornier). SCI Calyx is owned 51% by the CompanyTornier SAS and 49% by Mr. Tornier. SCI Calyx was initially capitalized by a contribution of capital of €10,000 funded 51% by the CompanyTornier SAS and 49% by Mr. Tornier. SCI Calyx then acquired a combined manufacturing and office facility in Montbonnot, France, for approximately $6.1 million. The manufacturing and office facility acquired was to be used to support the manufacture of certain of the Company’slegacy Tornier’s current products and house certain operations already located in Montbonnot, France. This real estate purchase was funded through mortgage borrowings of $4.1 million and $2.0 million cash borrowed from the two current shareholders of SCI Calyx. The $2.0 million cash borrowed from the SCI Calyx shareholders originally consisted of a $1.0 million note due to Mr. Tornier and a $1.0 million note due to Tornier SAS, which is the Company’s wholly owned French operating subsidiary.SAS. Both of the notes issued by SCI Calyx bear annual interest at the three-month Euro Libor rate plus 0.5% and have no stated term. During 2010, SCI Calyx borrowed approximately $1.4 million from Mr. Tornier in order to fund on-going leasehold improvements necessary to prepare the Montbonnot facility for its intended use. This cash was borrowed under the same terms as the original notes. On September 3, 2008, Tornier SAS the Company’s French operating subsidiary, entered into a lease agreement with SCI Calyx relating to these facilities. The agreement, which terminates in 2018, provides for an annual rent payment of €440,000, which has subsequently been increased and is currently €904,908€965,655 annually. Annual lease payments to SCI Calyx amounted to $2.2 million during the year ended December 27, 2015, $0.6 million of which is reflected in our consolidated financial statements in light of the timing of the Wright/Tornier merger. As of December 29, 2013,27, 2015, future minimum payments under this lease were €4.3$12.3 million in the aggregate. As of December 29, 2013,27, 2015, SCI Calyx hadrelated-party debt outstanding to Mr. Tornier of $2.3$2.0 million. The SCI Calyx entity is consolidated by the Company,us, and the related real estate and liabilities are included in theon our consolidated balance sheets.

Since 2006, Tornier SAS has entered into various lease agreements with entities affiliated with Mr. Tornier or members of his family. On December 29, 2007, Tornier SAS entered into a lease agreement with Mr. Tornier and his spouse, relating to the Company’s museum in Saint Villa, France. The agreement provides for a term through May 30, 2015 and an initial annual rent payment of €28,500, which was subsequently increased to €36,095. On December 29, 2007, Tornier SAS entered into a lease agreement with Animus SCI, relating to the Company’sour facilities in Montbonnot Saint Martin, France. On August 18, 2012, the parties amended the lease agreement to extend the term until May 31, 2022 and reduce the annual rent. The amended agreement provides for an initial annual rent payment of €279,506, which was subsequently increased to €288,564.€296,861. Animus SCI is wholly owned by Mr. Tornier. On February 6, 2008, Tornier SAS entered into a lease agreement with Balux SCI, effective as of May 22, 2006, relating to the Company’sour facilities in Montbonnot Saint Martin, France. On August 18, 2012, the parties amended the lease agreement to extend the term until May 31, 2022 and reduce the annual rent. The amended agreement provides for an initial annual rent payment of €252,254, which was subsequently increased to €548,465.€564,229. Balux SCI is wholly ownedwholly-owned by Mr. Tornier and his sister, Colette Tornier. As
19. Quarterly Results of December 29, 2013, future minimum payments under all of these agreements were €8.1 million in the aggregate.

16.Share-Based Compensation

Share-based awards are granted under the Tornier N.V. 2010 Incentive Plan, as amended and restated (2010 Plan). This plan allows for the issuance of up to 7.7 million new ordinary shares in connection with the grant of a combination of potential share-based awards, including stock options, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights and other types of awards as deemed appropriate. To date, only options to purchase ordinary shares (options) and restricted stock units (RSUs) have been awarded. Both types of awards generally have graded vesting periods of four years and the options expire ten years after the grant date. Options are granted with exercise prices equal to the fair value of the Company’s ordinary shares on the date of grant.

The Company recognizes compensation expense for these awards on a straight-line basis over the vesting period.Share-based compensation expense is included in cost of goods sold, selling, general and administrative, and research and development expenses on the consolidated statements of operations.

Below is a summary of the allocation ofshare-based compensation (in thousands):

   Year ended 
   December 29,
2013
   December 30,
2012
   January 1,
2012
 

Cost of goods sold

  $658    $864    $841  

Selling, general and administrative

   6,955     5,477     5,263  

Research and development

   687     489     443  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

  $8,300    $6,830    $6,547  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

The Company recognizes the fair value of share-based awards granted in exchange for employee services as a cost of those services. Total compensation cost included in the consolidated statements of operations for employeeshare-based payment arrangements was $8.0 million, $6.5 million and $6.2 million during the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively. The increase in share-based compensation in 2013 was due to a change in the estimated forfeiture rate applied to unvested awards that resulted in $1.6 million of additional expense. The amount of expense related to non-employee options was $0.3 million, $0.3 million and $0.3 million for the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively. Additionally, $0.4 million and $0.3 million of these share-based compensation costs were included in inventory as a capitalized cost as of December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively.

Stock Option Awards

The Company estimates the fair value of stock options using theBlack-Scholes option pricing model. TheBlack-Scholes option pricing model requires the input of estimates, including the expected life of stock options, expected stock price volatility, the risk-free interest rate and the expected dividend yield. The Company calculates the expected life of stock options using the SEC’s allowed short-cut method due to the relatively recent initial public offering and a lack of historical data. The expected stock price volatility assumption was estimated based upon historical volatility of the common stock of a group of the Company’s peers that are publicly traded. The risk-free interest rate was determined using U.S. Treasury rates with terms consistent with the expected life of the stock options. Expected dividend yield is not considered, as the Company has never paid dividends and currently has no plans of doing so during the term of the options. The Company estimates forfeitures at the time of grant and revises those estimates in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. The Company uses historical data when available to estimate pre-vesting option forfeitures, and recordsshare-based compensation expense only for those awards that are expected to vest. Theweighted-average fair value of the Company’s options granted to employees was $8.95, $8.55 and $12.06 per share, in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The fair value of each option grant is estimated on the date of grant using theBlack-Scholes option pricing model using the followingweighted-average assumptions:

   Years ended 
   December 29,
2013
  January 1,
2012
  January 2,
2011
 

Risk-free interest rate

   1.7  0.9  2.1

Expected life in years

   6.1    6.1    6.1  

Expected volatility

   46.6  48.1  48.6

Expected dividend yield

   0.0  0.0  0.0

As of December 29, 2013, the Company had $8.2 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvestedshare-based compensation arrangements granted to employees under the 2010 Plan and the Company’s prior stock option plan. That cost is expected to be recognized over aweighted-average service period of 1.5 years. Shares reserved for future compensation grants were 2.1 million and 2.5 million at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, respectively. Per share exercise prices for options outstanding at December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012, ranged from $13.39 to $27.31.

A summary of the Company’s employee stock option activity is as follows:

   Ordinary
Shares
(In Thousands)
  Weighted-Average
Per Share
Exercise Price
   Weighted-Average
Remaining
Contractual Life
(In Years)
   Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value (in
Millions)
 

Outstanding at January 2, 2011

   3,532    17.02     7.4     19.4  
  

 

 

      

Granted

   647    24.76      

Exercised

   (210  15.02      

Forfeited or expired

   (73  20.96      
  

 

 

      

Outstanding at January 1, 2012

   3,896    18.32     6.9     (3.8
  

 

 

      

Granted

   626    18.45      

Exercised

   (426  16.56      

Forfeited or expired

   (314  22.33      
  

 

 

      

Outstanding at December 30, 2012

   3,782    18.23     6.4     (7.3
  

 

 

      

Granted

   643    19.32      

Exercised

   (1,454  14.38      

Forfeited or expired

   (543  22.51      
  

 

 

      

Outstanding at December 29, 2013

   2,428    19.89     7.5     (3.9
  

 

 

      

Exercisable at period end

   1,236    20.03     6.2     (2.1

The Company did not grant options to purchase ordinary shares to non-employees in the years ended December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012. During the year ended January 1, 2012, the Company granted options to purchase 74,667 ordinary shares to non-employees in exchange for consulting services. The options granted during the year ended January 1, 2012 had aweighted-average exercise price of $19.39 per share and a weighted average grant date fair value of $9.74 per share. Related to the non-employee options, 177,013 of these options were exercisable at December 29, 2013, while 26,007 of these options were exercised in 2013 and 6,180 were forfeited. These options have vesting periods of either two or four years and expire 10 years after the grant date. The measurement date for options granted to non-employees is often after the grant date, which often requires updates to the estimate of fair value until the services are performed.

Total stock option-related compensation expense recognized in the consolidated statements of operations, including employees and non-employees, was approximately $5.3 million, $5.0 million and $5.8 million for the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively.

Restricted Stock Units Awards

The Company began to grant RSUs in 2011 under the 2010 Plan. Vesting of these awards typically occurs over a four-year period and the grant date fair value of the awards is recognized as expense over the vesting period. Total compensation expense recognized in the consolidated statements of operations related to RSUs was $3.0 million, $1.8 million and $0.7 million for the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012, respectively.

A summary of the Company’s activity related to RSUs is as follows:

   Shares
(In Thousands)
  Weighted-Average
Grant Date Fair
Value Per Share
 

Outstanding at January 2, 2011

   —      —    

Granted

   221    25.06  

Vested

   (7  23.61  

Cancelled

   (7  25.52  
  

 

 

  

Outstanding at January 1, 2012

   207    25.10  

Granted

   305    18.51  

Vested

   (55  20.21  

Cancelled

   (35  24.01  
  

 

 

  

Outstanding at December 30, 2012

   422    20.57  

Granted

   323    19.25  

Vested

   (97  16.40  

Cancelled

   (75  22.03  
  

 

 

  

Outstanding at December 29, 2013

   573    19.54  
  

 

 

  

17. Other Non-Operating Income

During the year ended December 29, 2013, the Company recognized an immaterial amount in other non-operating income. During the year ended December 30, 2012, the Company recognized $0.1 million in other non-operating income. During the year ended January 1, 2012, the Company recognized $1.3 million in non-operating income, which included a $1.0 million gain on settlement of a contingent liability and a $0.3 million gain related to the sale of certain non-operating real estate in France.

18. Special Charges

Special charges are recorded as a separate line item within operating expenses on the consolidated statement of operations and primarily include operating expenses directly related to business combinations and related integration activities, restructuring initiatives (including the facilities consolidation initiative), management exit costs and certain other items that are typically infrequent in nature and that affect the comparability and trend of operating results. The table below summarizes amounts included in special charges for the related periods:

   Year ended 
   December 29,
2013
  December 30,
2012
   January 1,
2012
 

Facilities consolidation charges

  $—     $6,357    $—    

Acquisition, integration and distributor transition costs

   7,143    4,920     —    

OrthoHelix restructuring charges

   521    —       —    

Reduction in contingent consideration liability

   (5,140  —       —    

Legal settlements

   1,214    —       —    

Italy bad debt expense

   —      2,001     —    

Management exit costs

   —      1,229     632  

Intangible asset impairments

   —      4,737     —    

Other

   —      —       260  
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

  $3,738   $19,244    $892  
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Included in special charges for the year ended December 29, 2013 were $7.1 million of expenses related to acquisition and integration activities of OrthoHelix, U.S. distributor transitions, and the Company’s acquisitions of certain assets of its distributors in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia; $5.1 million of gain recognized on the reversal of a contingent consideration liability for OrthoHelix due to updated revenue estimates; $1.2 million of expenses related to a certain legal settlement; and $0.5 million of OrthoHelix restructuring costs.

Included in special charges for the year ended December 30, 2012 were $6.4 million of restructuring costs related to the Company’s facilities consolidation initiative. See below for further details on this initiative. Also included in special charges were intangible impairments of $4.7 million as the Company made certain strategic decisions related to previously acquired intangibles which was determined to be impaired as a result of the acquisition of OrthoHelix; acquisition and integration costs of $3.5 million which included costs related to the Company’s acquisition of OrthoHelix and the Company’s exclusive distributor in Belgium and Luxembourg; $2.0 million of bad debt expense related to certain uncollectible accounts and worsening economic conditions in Italy; distribution channel change costs of $1.4 million which included termination costs related to certain strategic business decisions made related to the Company’s U.S. and international distribution channels; and management exit costs of $1.2 million which included severance related to the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer and Global Chief Financial Officer.

Included in special charges on the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended January 1, 2012 are $0.6 million in management termination costs and $0.3 million of charges related to the closure of the Company’s Beverly, Massachusetts facility.

OrthoHelix Restructuring Initiative

In December 2013, as part of the on-going integration of OrthoHelix, the Company announced the move and consolidation of various business operations from Medina, Ohio to Bloomington, Minnesota including customer service, quality, supply chain and finance functions. Charges incurred in connection with the initiative during the year ended December 29, 2013 were $0.4 million and related to termination benefits including severance and retention and $0.1 million of impairment charges for fixed assets, all of which were recorded in special charges in the consolidated statement of operations. The Company estimated it will incur $2.0 to $2.5 million in total charges related to the initiative, substantially all of which will be recorded and paid in 2014.

Included in accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 29, 2013 is an accrual related to the OrthoHelix restructuring initiative. Activity in the restructuring accrual is presented in the following table (in thousands):

OrthoHelix restructuring accrual balance as of December 30, 2012

  $ —    
  

 

 

 

Charges:

  

Employee termination benefits

   381  

Moving, professional fees and other initiative-related expenses

   —    
  

 

 

 

Total charges

   381  

Payments:

  

Employee termination benefits

   —    

Moving, professional fees and other initiative-related expenses

   —    
  

 

 

 

Total payments

   —    
  

 

 

 

OrthoHelix restructuring initiative accrual balance as of December 29, 2013

  $381  
  

 

 

 

Facilities Consolidation Initiative

On April 13, 2012, the Company announced a facilities consolidation initiative, stating that it planned to consolidate several of its facilities to drive operational productivity. Under the initiative, the Company consolidated its Dunmanway, Ireland manufacturing facility into its Macroom, Ireland manufacturing facility in the second quarter of 2012 and, in the third quarter of 2012, the Company consolidated its St. Ismier, France manufacturing facility into its Montbonnot, France manufacturing facility. In addition, the Company leased a new facility in Bloomington, Minnesota to use as its U.S. business headquarters and consolidated its Minneapolis-based marketing, training, regulatory, supply chain, and corporate functions with its Stafford, Texas-based distribution operations. This initiative was completed in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Charges incurred in connection with the facilities consolidation initiatives were recorded in the year ended December 30, 2012 and are presented in the following table (in thousands). All of the following amounts were recognized within special charges in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.

   Fiscal Year Ended
December 30, 2012
 

Employee termination benefits

  $1,180  

Impairment charges related to fixed assets

   872  

Moving, professional fees and other initiative-related expenses

   4,305  
  

 

 

 

Total facilities consolidation expenses

  $6,357  
  

 

 

 

The $1.2 million of employee termination benefits includes severance and retention related to approximately 65 employees impacted by the facilities consolidation initiative in the United States. The $0.9 million of impairment charges related to fixed assets are a result of closing the impacted facilities in the United States, France and Ireland. The $4.3 million of moving, professional fees and other initiative-related expenses include moving and transportation expenses, lease termination costs, professional fees and other expenses that were incurred to execute the facilities consolidation initiative.

Included in accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 29, 2013 and December 30, 2012 is an accrual related to the facilities consolidation initiative. Activity in the facilities consolidation accrual is presented in the following table (in thousands):

Facility consolidation accrual balance as of January 2, 2012

  $—    
  

 

 

 

Charges:

  

Employee termination benefits

   1,180  

Moving, professional fees and other initiative-related expenses

   4,305  
  

 

 

 

Total charges

   5,485  

Payments:

  

Employee termination benefits

   (620

Moving, professional fees and other initiative-related expenses

   (4,191
  

 

 

 

Total payments

   (4,811
  

 

 

 

Facilities consolidation accrual balance as of December 30, 2012

  $674  
  

 

 

 

Payments:

  

Employee termination benefits

   (475

Moving, professional fees and other initiative-related expenses

   (107
  

 

 

 

Total payments

   (582
  

 

 

 

Facilities consolidation accrual balance as of December 29, 2013

  $92  
  

 

 

 

19. Litigation

From time to time, the Company is subject to various pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings, including those that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These actions and proceedings may relate to, among other things, product liability, intellectual property, distributor, commercial and other matters. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and to outcomes that are not predictable with assurance and that may not be known for extended periods of time. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for costs related to claims, including future legal costs, settlements and judgments, where the Company has assessed that a loss is probable and an amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, the Company records the most probable estimate of the loss or the minimum amount when no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. The Company discloses a contingent liability even if the liability is not probable or the amount is not estimable, or both, if there is a reasonable possibility that material loss may be have been incurred. In the opinion of management, as of December 29, 2013, the amount of liability, if any, with respect to these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not materially affect the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

20. Selected Quarterly InformationOperations (unaudited):

The following table presents a summary of the Company’sour unaudited quarterly operating results for each of the four quarters in 20132016 and 2012,2015, respectively (in thousands). This information was derived from unaudited interim financial statements that, in the opinion of management, have been prepared on a basis consistent with the financial statements contained elsewhere in this report and include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair presentationstatement of such information when read in conjunction with the Company’sour audited financial statements and related notes. The operating results for any quarter are not necessarily indicative of results for any future period.

   Year ended December 29, 2013 
   Fourth
Quarter
  Third
Quarter
  Second
Quarter
  First
Quarter
 
   (in thousands, except per share data) 

Revenue

  $83,392   $66,747   $78,135   $82,685  

Cost of goods sold

   21,267    18,972    22,309    23,624  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Gross profit

   62,125    47,775    55,826    59,061  

Operating expenses:

     

Selling, general and administrative

   56,451    46,797    51,467    52,136  

Research and development

   5,997    4,665    5,543    6,182  

Amortization of intangible assets

   4,288    3,976    3,784    3,837  

Special charges

   2,729    (3,918  3,408    1,519  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

   69,465    51,520    64,202    63,674  

Operating loss

   (7,340  (3,745  (8,376  (4,613
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Consolidated net loss

   (10,699  (6,292  (12,537  (6,898
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net loss per share:

     

basic and diluted

  $(0.22 $(0.13 $(0.28 $(0.17

   Year ended December 30, 2012 
   Fourth
Quarter
  Third
Quarter
  Second
Quarter
  First
Quarter
 
   (in thousands, except per share data) 

Revenue

  $79,033   $58,015   $66,014   $74,458  

Cost of goods sold

   26,974    15,730    18,098    21,116  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Gross profit

   52,059    42,285    47,916    53,342  

Operating expenses:

     

Selling, general and administrative

   46,290    38,524    41,795    43,838  

Research and development

   6,195    5,260    5,446    5,623  

Amortization of intangible assets

   3,708    2,730    2,636    2,647  

Special charges

   9,831    6,503    2,910    —    
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

   66,024    53,017    52,787    52,108  

Operating loss

   (13,965  (10,732  (4,871  1,234  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Consolidated net loss

   (4,803  (11,681  (5,084  (176

Net loss per share:

     

basic and diluted

  $(0.12 $(0.29 $(0.13 $(0.00

For


WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

 2016
 
First
quarter 1
 
Second
quarter
 
Third
quarter
 
Fourth
quarter
Net sales$169,291
 $170,716
 $157,332
 $193,023
Cost of sales46,666
 49,009
 46,149
 50,583
Gross profit122,625
 121,707
 111,183
 142,440
Operating expenses:       
Selling, general and administrative134,746
 136,483
 129,840
 140,489
Research and development12,116
 12,108
 12,481
 13,809
Amortization of intangible assets6,457
 7,484
 7,466
 7,434
Total operating expenses153,319
 156,075
 149,787
 161,732
Operating loss$(30,694) $(34,368) $(38,604) $(19,292)
Net loss from continuing operations, net of tax$(40,193) $(42,031) $(52,709) $(30,002)
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax$(7,799) $(187,329) $(57,436) $(14,874)
Net loss$(47,992) $(229,360) $(110,145) $(44,876)
Net loss, continuing operations per share, basic and diluted$(0.39) $(0.41) $(0.51) $(0.29)
Net loss per share, basic and diluted$(0.47) $(2.23) $(1.07) $(0.43)
Weighted-average number of shares outstanding-basic and diluted102,704
 102,785
 103,072
 103,309
1
Our first quarter 2016 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.
Our 2016 operating loss included the year ended December 29, 2013,following:
transaction and transition costs totaling $10.8 million, $7.1 million, $6.5 million, and $7.9 million during the first, second, third, and fourth quarters included net charges of $1.52016, respectively;
amortization of inventory step-up of $10.2 million, $3.4$10.4 million, $(3.9)$10.3 million, and $2.7$6.8 million respectively, related to acquisition, integration and distribution channel transition charges, certain legal settlements, the partial reversal of a contingent consideration liability incurred in the acquisition of OrthoHelix and certain other items, all of which were recorded in special charges within operating expenses. The first, second, third, and fourth quarters also includedof 2016, respectively, associated with inventory acquired from the Wright/Tornier merger;
non-cash inventory fair value adjustments of $1.8provisions associated with a product rationalization initiative totaling $2.0 million, $1.9 million, $1.8$1.6 million, and $0.5 million respectively, which were included in cost of goods sold.

For the year ended December 30, 2012, the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2016, respectively;

costs associated with executive management changes of $1.3 million in the second quarter of 2016;
costs related to a legal settlement of $1.8 million in the second quarter of 2016; and
costs associated with debt refinancing of $0.2 million in the second quarter of 2016.
Our 2016 net loss from continuing operations included chargesthe following:
the after-tax effect of $1.1the above amounts;
the after-tax effects of our CVR mark-to-market adjustments of $5.3 million $2.9unrealized loss, $1.4 million unrealized loss, $2.2 million unrealized loss, and $2.5$0.3 million respectively,unrealized gain recognized in the first, second, third, and fourth quarters of 2016, respectively;
the after-tax effects of $12.3 million non-cash loss on extinguishment of debt to write-off unamortized debt discount and deferred financing fees associated with the partial settlement of 2017 Notes and 2020 Notes in the second quarter of 2016;
the after-tax effects of non-cash interest expense related to the Company’s facilities consolidation initiative, acquisitionamortization of the debt discount on our 2017 Notes, 2020 Notes and integration costs, intangible impairments,2021 Notes totaling $7.1 million, $8.2 million, $10.5 million, and certain other items, all$10.8 million during the first, second, third, and fourth quarters of which were recorded2016, respectively;
the after-tax effects of our mark-to-market adjustments on derivative assets and liabilities totaling a $6.6 million gain, $16.6 million gain, $3.2 million gain, and $1.8 million gain recognized in specialthe first, second, third, and fourth quarters of 2016, respectively;

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

the after-tax effects of charges within operating expenses. In addition,due to the fair value adjustment to contingent consideration totaled $0.3 million, $0.1 million, and $0.1 million in the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2016, respectively;
the after-tax effects of a $3.1 million interest and income tax benefit related to the settlement of an IRS audit in the second quarter of 2016; and
a $5.6 million income tax benefit representing the deferred tax effects associated with the acquired Tornier operations in the fourth quarter of 2016.
 2015
 First
quarter
 Second
quarter
 Third
quarter
 
Fourth
quarter
2
Net sales$77,934
 $80,420
 $80,139
 $166,833
Cost of sales19,125
 21,635
 23,052
 49,810
Gross profit58,809
 58,785
 57,087
 117,023
Operating expenses:       
Selling, general and administrative82,199
 82,605
 85,997
 173,576
Research and development7,117
 7,957
 9,570
 14,695
Amortization of intangible assets2,614
 2,565
 2,562
 9,013
Total operating expenses91,930
 93,127
 98,129
 197,284
Operating loss$(33,121) $(34,342) $(41,042) $(80,261)
Net loss, continuing operations, net of tax$(46,248) $(37,306) $(62,650) $(91,152)
Net loss, discontinued operations, net of tax$(3,500) $(7,009) $(36,211) $(14,624)
Net loss$(49,748) $(44,315) $(98,861) $(105,776)
Net loss, continuing operations per share, basic and diluted 1
$(0.88) $(0.71) $(1.19) $(0.89)
Net loss per share, basic and diluted 1
$(0.95) $(0.84) $(1.87) $(1.03)
Weighted-average number of shares outstanding-basic and diluted 1
52,437
 52,631
 52,750
 102,659
___________________________
1
During 2015, we restated the first, second, and third quarter balances to meet post-merger valuations as described within Note 13.
2
Our fourth quarter 2015 results of operations include results of the legacy Tornier business, effective upon October 1, 2015, the closing date of the Wright/Tornier merger, and have been restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.
Our 2015 operating loss included $2.9the following:
transaction and transition costs totaling $11.0 million, $12.1 million, $19.9 million, and $39.2 million during the first, second, third, and fourth quarters of 2015, respectively;
non-cash share-based compensation expense of $14.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2015 associated with the accelerated vesting of legacy Wright's unvested awards outstanding upon the closing of the Wright/Tornier merger; and
amortization of inventory product rationalization charges and $1.6step-up of $10.3 million in acquired inventory fair value adjustments, both of which were recorded in cost of goods sold. Thethe fourth quarter alsoof 2015 associated with inventory acquired from the Wright/Tornier merger.
Our 2015 net loss from continuing operations included the following:
the after-tax effect of the above amounts;
the after-tax effects of our CVR mark-to-market adjustments of $13.5 million unrealized gain, $8.5 million unrealized gain, $14.6 million unrealized loss, and $0.3 million unrealized gain recognized in the first, second, third, and fourth quarters of 2015, respectively;

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

the after-tax effects of $25.2 million of charges related to the write-off of unamortized debt discount and deferred financing costs associated with the settlement of 2017 Notes during the first quarter of 2015;
the after-tax effects of non-cash interest expense related to the amortization of the debt discount on our 2017 Notes and 2020 Notes totaling $4.5 million, $6.6 million, $6.8 million, and $6.9 million during the first, second, third, and fourth quarters of 2015, respectively;
the after-tax effects of our mark-to-market adjustments on derivative assets and liabilities totaling a $10.7$6.9 million tax benefitgain, $0.4 million gain, $4.7 million gain, and $2.3 million loss recognized in the first, second, third, and fourth quarters of 2015, respectively; and
the after-tax effects of charges due to the reversalfair value adjustment to contingent consideration totaled $0.2 million in the second quarter of valuation allowance2015.
20. Segment and Geographic Data
During the first quarter of 2016, our management, including our Chief Executive Officer, who is our chief operating decision maker, began managing our operations as four operating business segments: U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics, U.S. Upper Extremities, International Extremities & Biologics, and Large Joints. We determined that each of these operating segments represented a reportable segment. Our Chief Executive Officer reviews financial information at the operating segment level to allocate resources and to assess the operating results and performance of each segment.  As a result of the classification of the Large Joints business as a discontinued operation during the second quarter of 2016, the Large Joints reportable segment is presented in our consolidated statements of operations as discontinued operations and is excluded from segment results for all periods presented. See Note 4 of the acquisitionconsolidated financial statements for additional information regarding this divestiture. U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics, U.S. Upper Extremities, and International Extremities & Biologics are our remaining three reportable segments as of OrthoHelix.

December 25, 2016.
Our U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics segment consists of our operations focused on the sale in the United States of our lower extremities products, such as joint implants and bone fixation devices for the foot and ankle, and our biologics products used to support treatment of damaged or diseased bone, tendons, and soft tissues or to stimulate bone growth. Our U.S. Upper Extremities segment consists of our operations focused on the sale in the United States of our upper extremities products, such as joint implants and bone fixation devices for the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand and products used across several anatomic sites to mechanically repair tissue-to-tissue or tissue-to-bone injuries and other ancillary products. Our International Extremities & Biologics segment consists of our operations focused on the sale outside the United States of all lower and upper extremities products, including associated biologics products.
Management measures segment profitability using an internal operating performance measure that excludes the impact of inventory step-up amortization and due diligence, transaction and transition costs associated with acquisitions, as such items are not considered representative of segment results. Management's change to the way it monitors performance, aligns strategies, and allocates resources results in a change in our reportable segments and a change in reporting units for goodwill impairment measurement purposes. We have determined that each reportable segment represents a reporting unit and, in accordance with ASC 350, requires an allocation of goodwill to each reporting unit. As of December 25, 2016, we have allocated $219 million, $559 million, and $74 million of goodwill to the U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics, U.S. Upper Extremities, and International Extremities & Biologics reportable segments, respectively.

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

Net sales by product line are as follows (in thousands):
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 
December 27, 2015 1
 December 31, 2014
U.S.     
Lower extremities$222,936
 $187,096
 $148,631
Upper extremities201,579
 58,756
 15,311
Biologics74,603
 50,583
 45,494
Sports med & other8,429
 3,388
 2,641
Total U.S.$507,547
 $299,823
 $212,077
      
International     
Lower extremities$62,701
 $51,200
 $47,001
Upper extremities86,502
 24,789
 11,312
Biologics18,883
 19,652
 20,590
Sports med & other14,729
 9,862
 7,047
Total International$182,815
 $105,503
 $85,950
      
Total$690,362
 $405,326
 $298,027
      
___________________________
1
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.
Our principal geographic regions consist of the United States, EMEA (which includes Europe, the Middle East and Africa), and Other (which principally represents Asia, Australia, Canada, and Latin America). Net sales attributed to each geographic region are based on the location in which the products were sold.
Net sales by geographic region are as follows (in thousands):
 Fiscal year ended
 December 25, 2016 
December 27, 2015 1
 December 31, 2014
Net sales by geographic region:     
United States$507,547
 $299,823
 $212,077
EMEA117,268
 62,662
 48,991
Other65,547
 42,841
 36,959
Total$690,362
 $405,326
 $298,027
___________________________
1
The 2015 results were restated for the divestiture of our Large Joints business.
No single foreign country accounted for more than 10% of our total net sales during 2016, 2015, or 2014.
Assets in the U.S. Upper Extremities, U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics, and International Extremities & Biologics segments are those assets used exclusively in the operations of each business segment or allocated when used jointly. Assets in the Corporate category are principally cash and cash equivalents, derivative assets, property, plant and equipment associated with our corporate headquarters, assets associated with discontinued operations, product liability insurance receivables, and assets associated with income taxes. Total assets by business segment as of December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015 are as follows (in thousands):
 December 25, 2016
 U.S. Lower Extremities & BiologicsU.S. Upper ExtremitiesInternational Extremities & BiologicsCorporateAssets held for saleTotal
Total assets$491,531
$845,102
$264,680
$689,273
$
$2,290,586

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

 December 27, 2015
 U.S. Lower Extremities & BiologicsU.S. Upper ExtremitiesInternational Extremities & BiologicsCorporateAssets held for saleTotal
Total assets$490,798
$833,432
$365,621
$333,473
$50,170
$2,073,494
Selected financial information related to our segments is presented below for the fiscal years ended December 25, 2016, December 27, 2015, and December 31, 2014 (in thousands):
 Fiscal year ended December 25, 2016
 U.S. Lower Extremities & BiologicsU.S. Upper ExtremitiesInternational Extremities & Biologics
Corporate 1
Total
Net sales from external customers$300,847
$206,700
$182,815
$
$690,362
Depreciation expense13,000
11,190
11,427
20,213
55,830
Amortization expense


28,841
28,841
Segment operating income (loss)$85,645
$65,231
$5,872
$(202,261)$(45,513)
Other:     
Inventory step-up amortization    37,689
Transaction and transition expenses    32,300
Product rationalization    4,074
Legal settlement    1,800
Management changes    1,348
Costs associated with new convertible debt    234
Operating loss    (122,958)
Interest expense, net    58,530
Other income, net    (3,148)
Loss before income taxes    $(178,340)
Capital expenditures$13,145
$10,101
$13,517
$13,336
$50,099
 Fiscal year ended December 27, 2015
 U.S. Lower Extremities & BiologicsU.S. Upper ExtremitiesInternational Extremities & Biologics
Corporate 1
Total
Net sales from external customers$239,748
$60,075
$105,503
$
$405,326
Depreciation expense10,502
1,092
5,795
12,119
29,508
Amortization expense


16,754
16,754
Segment operating income (loss)$39,008
$21,394
$(5,567)$(136,836)$(82,001)
Other:     
Inventory step-up amortization    10,315
Due diligence, transaction and transition expenses    82,195
Share-based compensation acceleration    14,190
Distributor conversions and non-competes    65
Operating loss    (188,766)
Interest expense, net    41,358
Other expense (income), net    10,884
Loss before income taxes    $(241,008)
Capital expenditures$25,410
$6,903
$7,140
$4,213
$43,666

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(continued)

 Fiscal year ended December 31, 2014
 U.S. Lower Extremities & BiologicsU.S. Upper ExtremitiesInternational Extremities & Biologics
Corporate 1
Total
Net sales from external customers$196,766
$15,311
$85,950
$
$298,027
Depreciation expense9,006
701
3,046
5,703
18,456
Amortization expense


10,027
10,027
Segment operating income (loss)$29,200
$6,582
$(3,187)$(94,828)$(62,233)
Other:     
Inventory step-up amortization    1,535
Distributor conversion and non-compete charges    2,071
Patent dispute settlement    900
Management changes    1,203
Acquisition due diligence, transaction and transition expenses    19,964
Tornier merger costs    11,900
Operating loss    (99,806)
Interest expense, net    17,398
Other expense, net    129,626
Loss before income taxes    $(246,830)
Capital expenditures$23,949
$1,864
$6,486
$16,304
$48,603
1
The Corporate category primarily reflects general and administrative expenses not specifically associated with the U.S. Lower Extremities & Biologics, U.S. Upper Extremities, and International Extremities & Biologics segments. These non-allocated corporate expenses relate to global administrative expenses that support all segments, including salaries and benefits of certain executive officers and expenses such as: information technology administration and support; corporate headquarters; legal, compliance, and corporate finance functions; insurance; and all share-based compensation.

ITEM

Item 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

Not applicable.

ITEM

Item 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Controls and Procedures.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls

Our President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, referred to collectively herein as the Certifying Officers, are responsible for establishing and maintaining our disclosure controls and procedures. The Certifying Officers have reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of ourProcedures

Our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 240.13a-15(e)13a-15(e) and 240.15d-15(e) promulgated15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) as of December 29, 2013. Based onare designed to ensure that review and evaluation, which included inquiries made to certain of our other employees, the Certifying Officers have concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this report, our disclosure controls and procedures, as designed and implemented, are effective in ensuring that information relating to Tornier required to be disclosed in the reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rulesCommission and forms, including ensuringto ensure that such information required to be disclosed is accumulated and communicated to our management, including the Certifying Officers, as appropriateour principal executive officer and principal financial officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

  The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), with assistance from other members of management, have reviewed the design and effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 25, 2016 and, based on their evaluation, have concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of such date, due to a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Overover Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Underreporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) under the supervision and with the participationExchange Act.
A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our management, including our President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, we conducted an evaluation ofannual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. 
Management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 29, 2013,25, 2016, based on the criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (1992 framework) (COSO) in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013). Based on this evaluation, ourassessment, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 29, 2013.25, 2016 was not effective due to the identification of a material weakness. The reportmaterial weakness in internal control over financial reporting related to ineffective design and operation of Ernst &Young LLP,general information technology controls related to user access to certain information technology systems that are relevant to our financial reporting processes and that are intended to ensure that access to financial applications and data is adequately restricted to appropriate personnel and monitored to ensure adherence to Company policies. This material weakness was due to a lack of sufficiently trained resources with knowledge of our internal control over financial reporting related to general information technology systems, and therefore we did not conduct an effective risk assessment process to evaluate requests for provisioning of user access, did not effectively communicate granted access to the appropriate approvers, and did not effectively monitor ongoing user access as it related to certain information technology systems. As a result, our automated and manual controls that are dependent on the effective design and operation of general information technology controls were also ineffective because they could have been adversely impacted.  This material weakness did not result in any identified misstatements to our consolidated financial statements or restatement of our prior-period consolidated financial statements, and there were no changes in our previously released financial results.
As a result of the material weakness noted above, we completed additional procedures prior to filing this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 25, 2016 (Form 10-K).  Our CEO and CFO have certified that, based on such officer’s knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this Form 10-K, fairly present in all material respects our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows as of, and for, the periods presented in this Form 10-K.  In addition, we have developed a remediation plan for this material weakness, which is described below.
Our independent registered public accounting firm regardinghas issued an adverse audit report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting is included in this report in “Part II. Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” under “Reportas of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.”

December 25, 2016.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

During

Except for the fourth quarter endedcontrol deficiencies discussed above that have been assessed as a material weakness as of December 29, 2013,25, 2016, there werehave been no other changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act) that occurred during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016 that have materially affected, or that are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.


Remediation Plan
Management is actively implementing a remediation plan to ensure that control deficiencies contributing to the material weakness are remediated such that new controls will be designed effectively and existing controls will operate effectively.  The remediation actions we are taking, and expect to take, include: (i) improving the design, operation and monitoring of control activities and procedures associated with user access to our information technology systems; (ii) hiring additional information technology expertise to support our controls over and monitoring of our information technology systems; and (iii) educating and re-training control owners regarding internal control processes to mitigate identified risks and maintaining adequate documentation to evidence the effective design and operation of such processes.
We believe that these actions, and the improvements we expect to achieve as a result, will effectively remediate the material weakness.  However, the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting will not be considered remediated until the remediated controls operate for a sufficient period of time and management has concluded, through testing, that these controls are designed and operating effectively.  We expect that the remediation of this material weakness will be completed in fiscal 2017.

ITEM

Item 9B. OTHER INFORMATION

2014 Corporate Performance Incentive Plan

On February 13, 2014, our board of directors, upon recommendation of our compensation committee, approved the material terms of the Tornier N.V. Corporate Performance Incentive Plan for 2014. Under the terms of the plan, each participant, including our executive officers, is eligible to earn an annual cash incentive payment based primarily on the achievement of corporate, and in some cases, divisional performance goals, and in the case of most participants, individual performance goals. The plan is designed to reward all eligible employees for achieving annual goals and to closely align their accomplishments with the interests of our shareholders.

Each plan participant has an annual incentive target bonus under the plan, expressed as a percentage of his or her annual base salary. Each plan participant’s target bonus percentage is based on the individual’s position and level of responsibility within the company. The target bonus percentages, expressed as a percentage of annual base salary, for our executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table contained elsewhere in this report are as follows for 2014: David H. Mowry, President and Chief Executive Officer (80%); Shawn T McCormick, Chief Financial Officer (50%); Gordon W. Van Ummersen, Senior Vice President, Product Delivery (50%); Terry M. Rich, Senior Vice President, U.S. Commercial Operations (75%); and Stéphan Epinette, Senior Vice President, International Commercial Operations (40%).

Each plan participant’s annual cash incentive bonus under the plan is determined by multiplying the participant’s target bonus amount (the participant’s target bonus percentage times his or her earned annual base salary) by a payout percentage equal to between 0% and 150% and determined based primarily on the achievement of corporate, and in some cases,

divisional performance goals, and in the case of most participants, individual performance goals. Consistent with the design for the 2013 plan, the payout under our 2014 corporate performance incentive plan for our President and Chief Executive Officer will be based 100% upon achievement of corporate performance goals, with no divisional performance or individual performance components. Otherwise, the percentage payout splits among corporate performance goals, divisional performance goals and individual performance goals will be the same for our other named executive officers for 2014, except that payouts for Mr. Rich and Mr. Epinette will be based 40% upon achievement of corporate performance goals and 60% upon achievement of their respective divisional goals. The corporate performance measures under the plan for 2014 will be based on Tornier’s adjusted revenue (both total revenue and total extremities revenue), adjusted EBITDA and adjusted free cash flow. The divisional performance measures for 2014 will be based on U.S. adjusted revenue for Mr. Rich and non-U.S. adjusted revenue (both total non-U.S. revenue and non-U.S. extremities revenue) for Mr. Epinette. If the minimum or threshold free cash flow corporate performance goal is not achieved, then our named executive officers will not receive any payout under the plan for individual performance. The material terms of the plan for 2014 are otherwise the same as the plan for 2013.

Discretionary Bonus

On February 13, 2014, our board of directors, upon recommendation of our compensation committee, approved a discretionary bonus of €31,944 to Stéphan Epinette, our Senior Vice President, International Commercial Operations. The bonus is intended to reward Mr. Epinette for the strong performance of our international business and his extraordinary individual performance and to retain and motivate him to achieve our corporate and international business’s performance objectives going forward.

Retention Stock Grants

Effective as of February 25, 2014, stock grants, in the form of restricted stock units, will be granted to certain officers, including three of the executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table contained elsewhere in this report. The purpose of the grants is to retain and motivate our officers in light of: (1) the continuity of the executive team is important for executing our current strategic plan; (2) such officers received minimal corporate bonus payouts for 2013 under the Tornier N.V. Corporate Performance Incentive Plan and received little to no corporate bonus payouts for 2012; (3) such officers received no bonus payouts for 2013 attributable to their individual performance since under the terms of the Tornier N.V. Corporate Performance Incentive Plan, if the threshold adjusted EBITDA corporate performance goal was not achieved, then executive officer participants did not receive any payout under the plan for individual performance; (4) the vast majority of previously granted stock options held by such officers are currently “underwater” and thus offer minimal retention value; and (5) the outstanding long-term incentive value for our executive officers is below the median for all positions compared to our peer group and below the 25th percentile for three of seven positions.

The restricted stock units will vest based on the passage of time, with 50% of the underlying shares vesting and becoming issuable on the two-year anniversary of the grant date, 25% on the three-year anniversary of the grant date and the remaining 25% on the four-year anniversary of the grant date, or, if earlier, upon the achievement of certain minimum share price triggers. The share price triggers will be measured based on a 30-day average closing price of our ordinary shares.

The following executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table will receive the following number of restricted stock units: Shawn T McCormick, Chief Financial Officer (12,500); Gordon W. Van Ummersen, Senior Vice President, Product Delivery (12,500); and Terry M. Rich, Senior Vice President, U.S. Commercial Operations (12,500). The other two executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table will not receive any retention stock grants.

Other Information.

Not applicable.

PART III


ITEM

Item 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

Directors and Executive Officers

The table below sets forth, as of February 10, 2014,17, 2017, certain information concerning our current directors and executive officers. No family relationships exist among any of our directors or executive officers.

Name

 Age 

Position

David H. Mowry

Robert J. Palmisano
 7251
 President and Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director

Shawn T McCormick

Lance A. Berry
 4449Chief Financial Officer

Stéphan Epinette

42
 Senior Vice President International Commercial Operationsand Chief Financial Officer

Kevin M. Klemz

Robert P. Burrows
 7052
 Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and SecretarySupply Chain

Gregory Morrison

James A. Lightman
 5950
 Senior Vice President, Global Human ResourcesGeneral Counsel and HPMSSecretary

Terry M. Rich

Gregory Morrison
 5346
 Senior Vice President, U.S. Commercial OperationsHuman Resources

Gordon W. Van Ummersen

J. Wesley Porter
 4752
 Senior Vice President Global Product Deliveryand Chief Compliance Officer

SeanJulie D. Carney(1)(2)(3)

Tracy
 5544
 Senior Vice President and Chief Communications Officer
Jennifer S. Walker49
Senior Vice President, Process Improvement
Kevin D. Cordell51
President, U.S.
Peter S. Cooke51
President, International
Timothy L. Lanier55
President, Upper Extremities
Patrick Fisher43
President. Lower Extremities
Julie B. Andrews45
Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
David D. Stevens(1)(2)
63
 Chairman and Non-Executive Director

Kevin C. O’Boyle

Gary D. Blackford(2)(3)(4)

 5957
 Non-Executive Director

Richard B. Emmitt

Sean D. Carney(3)(1)(4)

 4769
 Non-Executive Director

Alain Tornier

John L. Miclot(4)
 5767
 Non-Executive Director

Richard F. Wallman

Kevin C. O’Boyle(1)(4)(3)

 6062
 Non-Executive Director

Amy S. Paul(1)
65
Non-Executive Director
Richard F. Wallman(2)(3)
65
Non-Executive Director
Elizabeth H. Weatherman(1)(2)(4)

 5653
 Non-Executive Director

(1)Member of the compensation committee.
(2)Member of the nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee.
(3)Member of the strategic transactions committee.
(4)Member of the audit committee.

________________________
(1)Member of the nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee.
(2)Member of the strategic transactions committee.
(3)Member of the audit committee.
(4)Member of the compensation committee.
The following is a biographical summary of the experience of our directors and executive officers:

David H. Mowryserves as

Robert J. Palmisano was appointed our President and Chief Executive Officer a position heand an executive director and member of our board of directors in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Mr. Palmisano has held since February 2013, andserved as our Executive Director, a position he has held since June 2013. Mr. Mowry joined us in July 2011 as Chief Operating Officer, and in November 2012 was appointed Interim President and Chief Executive Officer. In February 2013, he was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer on a non-interim basis. He has over 24 years of experience in the medical device industry.Wright Medical Group, Inc. since September 2011. Prior to joining us,legacy Wright, Mr. MowryPalmisano served from July 2010 to July 2011 as President of the Global Neurovascular Division of Covidien plc, a global provider of healthcare products. From January 2010 to July 2010, Mr. Mowry served as Senior Vice President and President, Worldwide NeurovascularChief Executive Officer of ev3 Inc., a global endovascular device company, from April 2008 to July 2010, when it was acquired by Covidien in July 2010.plc. From August2003 to 2007, to January 2010, Mr. Mowry served as Senior Vice President of Worldwide Operations of ev3. Prior to this position, Mr. Mowry was Vice President of Operations for ev3 Neurovascular from November 2006 to October 2007. Before joining ev3, Mr. Mowry served as Vice President of Operations and Logistics at the Zimmer Spine division of Zimmer Holdings Inc., a reconstructive and spinal implants, trauma and related orthopaedic surgical products company, from February 2002 to November 2006. Prior to Zimmer, Mr. MowryPalmisano was President and Chief OperatingExecutive Officer of HeartStentIntraLase Corp. Before joining IntraLase, Mr. Palmisano was President and Chief Executive Officer of MacroChem Corporation from 2001 to 2003. Mr. Palmisano currently serves on the Providence College Board of Trustees and serves on the board of directors of Avedro Inc., a privately held ophthalmic medical device and pharmaceutical company. Mr. Mowry isPalmisano previously served on the board of directors of ev3 Inc., Osteotech, Inc. and Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., all publicly held companies, and Bausch & Lomb, a graduateprivately held company. Under the terms of his employment agreement, we have agreed that Mr. Palmisano will be nominated by our board of directors for election as an executive director and a member of our board of directors at each annual general meeting of shareholders during the United States Military Academyterm of his employment as President and Chief Executive Officer of our company. Mr. Palmisano’s qualifications to serve on our board of directors include his day-to-day knowledge of our company and business due to his position

as President and Chief Executive Officer, his experience serving on other public companies’ boards of directors, and his extensive business knowledge working with other public companies in West Point, New York with a degree in Engineeringthe medical device industry.
Lance A. Berry was appointed our Senior Vice President and Mathematics.

Shawn T McCormick joined us as our Chief Financial Officer in September 2012. Prior to joining us,October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Mr. McCormick served as Chief Operating Officer of Lutonix, Inc., a medical device company acquired by C. R. Bard, Inc. in December 2011, from April 2011 to February 2012. From January 2009 to July 2010, Mr. McCormickBerry has served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ev3Wright Medical Group, Inc., a global endovascular device company acquired Covidien plc since 2009. He joined legacy Wright in July 2010. Prior to joining ev3, Mr. McCormick2002, and, until his appointment as Chief Financial Officer, served as Vice President and Corporate DevelopmentController. Prior to joining Wright, Mr. Berry served as audit manager with the Memphis, Tennessee office of Arthur Andersen LLP from 1995 to 2002. Mr. Berry is a certified public accountant, inactive.

Robert P. Burrows was appointed our Senior Vice President, Supply Chain in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Mr. Burrows joined Wright Medical Group, Inc. in August 2014 as Senior Vice President, Supply Chain. Prior to joining legacy Wright, he served as Managing Principal of The On-Point Group, a privately held logistics and supply chain consultancy, from July 1994 through July 2014. While at Medtronic,On-Point, Mr. Burrows led over 40 client engagements, most recently as an operations consultant overseeing the transition and expansion of legacy Wright’s extremities and biologics manufacturing.
James A. Lightman was appointed our Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Mr. Lightman joined Wright Medical Group, Inc., in December 2011 as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary. Prior to joining legacy Wright, Mr. Lightman served in various legal and executive positions with Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, a global medical device company, where he was responsible for leading Medtronic’s worldwide business development activities.privately held supplier of eye health products. From February 2008 to November 2009, Mr. McCormick joined Medtronic in July 1992Lightman served as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel of Bausch & Lomb, and most recently held various finance and leadership positions during his tenure.the position of Vice President, Global Sales Operations until August 2011. From JulyJune 2007 to MayFebruary 2008, he served as Vice President Corporate Technology and New VenturesGeneral Counsel of Medtronic. From July 2002 to July 2007, he was Vice President, Finance for Medtronic’s Spinal, Biologics and Navigation business. Prior to that, Mr. McCormick held various other positions with Medtronic, including Corporate Development Director, Principal Corporate Development Associate, Manager, Financial Analysis, Senior Financial Analyst and Senior Auditor.Eyeonics, Inc. Prior to joining Medtronic, he spent four years with the public accounting firm KPMG Peat Marwick.Eyeonics, Mr. McCormick earned his Master of Business Administration from the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management and his Bachelor of Science in Accounting from Arizona State University. He is a Certified Public Accountant.

Stéphan Epinette leads our international commercial operations and large joints business as Senior Vice President, International Commercial Operations. Mr. Epinette served as Vice President, International Commercial Operations from December 2008 to January 2014 and in January 2014 was appointed to his current position. Mr. Epinette has over 19 years of experience in the orthopaedic medical device industry. Prior to joining us, he served in various leadership roles with Stryker Corporation, a medical technology company, in its MedSurg and Orthopaedic divisions in France, the United States and Switzerland from 1993 to December 2008, including as Business Unit Director France from 2005 to 2008. His past functions at Stryker also included Marketing Director MedSurg EMEA, Assistant to the EMEA President and Director of Business Development & Market Intelligence EMEA. Mr. Epinette earned a Master’s Degree in Health Economics from Sciences Politiques, Paris, a Master’s Degree in International Business from Paris University XII and a Bachelor of Arts from EBMS Barcelona. He also attended the INSEAD executive course in Finance and in Marketing.

Kevin M. Klemz serves as our Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary. Mr. Klemz served as Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary from September 2010 to January 2014 and in January 2014 was appointed to his current position. Prior to joining us, Mr. KlemzLightman served as Senior Vice President Secretary and Chief Legal Officer at ev3 Inc., a global endovascular device company acquired Covidien plc in July 2010,General Counsel of IntraLase Corp. from August 2007February 2005 to August 2010, and asApril 2007.

Gregory Morrison was appointed our Senior Vice President, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer at ev3 from January 2007 to August 2007. Prior to joining ev3,Human Resources in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Mr. Klemz was a partner in the law firm Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, where he was a corporate lawyer for approximately 20 years. Mr. Klemz has a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration from Hamline University and a Juris Doctor from William Mitchell College of Law.

Gregory Morrison serves served as our Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources and HPMS (High Performance Management System). Mr. Morrison of Tornier from January 2014 to October 2015 and served as Global Vice President, Human Resources from December 2010 to January 2014 and in January 2014 was appointed to this current position.2014. Prior to joining us,Tornier, Mr. Morrison served as Senior Vice President, Human Resources atof ev3 Inc., Inc., a global endovascular device company acquired by Covidien plc in July 2010, from August 2007 to December 2010, and as Vice President, Human Resources of ev3 from May 2002 to August 2007. Prior to joining ev3, Mr. Morrison served as Vice President of Organizational Effectiveness forof Thomson Legal & Regulatory from March 1999 to February 2002 and Vice President of Global Human Resources forof Schneider Worldwide, which was acquired by Boston Scientific Corporation, from 1988 to March 1999. Mr. Morrison has a Bachelor of Arts in English and Communications from North Adams State College and a Master of Arts in Corporate Communications from Fairfield University.

Terry M. Rich serves as

J. Wesley Porter was appointed our Senior Vice President U.S. Commercial Operations, a position he has held since March 2012.and Chief Compliance Officer in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Mr. Porter joined Wright Medical Group, Inc. in July 2014 as Vice President, Compliance and became Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer in October 2014. Prior to joining us,legacy Wright, Mr. RichPorter served as Vice President, Deputy Compliance Officer of Allergan, Inc. from September 2012 to February 2014, Vice President, Ethics and Compliance of CareFusion Corp. from June 2009 to September 2012, and Senior Corporate Counsel, Compliance, HIPAA and Reimbursement of Smith & Nephew, Inc. from April 2006 to May 2009.
Julie D. Tracy was appointed our Senior Vice President and Chief Communications Officer in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Ms. Tracy served as Senior Vice President, Chief Communications Officer of Sales – WestWright Medical Group, Inc. from October 2011 to October 2015. Prior to joining legacy Wright, Ms. Tracy served as Chief Communications Officer of NuVasive,Epocrates, Inc., a publicly held company that sold physician platforms for clinical content, practice tools and health industry engagement, from March 2011 to October 2011. From January 2008 to July 2010, Ms. Tracy was Senior Vice President and Chief Communications Officer of ev3 Inc. Prior to ev3, Ms. Tracy held marketing and investor relations positions at Kyphon Inc. from January 2003 to November 2007 and Thoratec Corporation from January 1998 to January 2003. Ms. Tracy currently serves as a member of the board of directors for the National Investor Relations Institute, the professional association of corporate officers and investor relations consultants responsible for communication among corporate management, shareholders, securities analysts and other financial community constituents.
Jennifer S. Walker was appointed our Senior Vice President, Process Improvement in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Ms. Walker served as Senior Vice President, Process Improvement of Wright Medical Group, Inc. from December 2011 to October 2015 and Vice President and Corporate Controller from December 2009 to December 2011. Since joining legacy Wright’s financial organization in 1993, she served as Assistant Controller, Director, Financial Reporting & Risk Management, Director, Corporate Tax & Risk Management, and Tax Manager of legacy Wright. Prior to joining legacy Wright, Ms. Walker was a senior tax accountant with Arthur Andersen LLP. Ms. Walker is a certified public accountant.

Kevin D. Cordell was appointed our President, U.S. in June 2016. From October 2015 to June 2016, he served as our President, Lower Extremities and Biologics. Mr. Cordell served as President, U.S. Extremities of Wright Medical Group, Inc. from September 2014 to October 2015. Prior to joining legacy Wright, Mr. Cordell served as Vice President of Sales for the GI Solutions business at Covidien plc, a global healthcare products company, from May 2012 to September 2014. While at Covidien, he served as Vice President of Sales and Global Marketing for its Peripheral Vascular business from July 2010 to May 2012. He joined Covidien in July 2010 through the acquisition of ev3 Inc., a global endovascular device company, where he served as Vice President of U.S. Sales from January 2009 to July 2010. Prior to ev3, Mr. Cordell served as Vice President, Global Sales of FoxHollow Technologies, Inc. from March 2007 until it was acquired by ev3 in October 2007. Earlier in his career, Mr. Cordell held various positions of increasing responsibility for Johnson & Johnson’s Cordis Cardiology and Centocor companies. Mr. Cordell serves on the board of directors of TissueGen, Inc., a privately-held developer of biodegradable polymer technology for implantable drug delivery.
Peter S. Cooke was appointed our President, International in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Mr. Cooke served as President, International of Wright Medical Group, Inc. from January 2014 to October 2015 and served as Senior Vice President, International from January 2013 to January 2014. Prior to joining legacy Wright, Mr. Cooke served as Vice President and General Manager, Vascular Therapies Emerging Markets of Covidien plc, a global healthcare products company, from July 2010 to January 2013. Prior to Covidien, Mr. Cooke served in various general management roles for ev3 Inc., a global endovascular device company acquired by Covidien in July 2010, including Vice President and General Manager, International from July 2008 to July 2010; Vice President, General Manager, International from November 2006 to June 2008; Vice President, Sales International from January 2005 until November 2006; and Regional Director Asia Pacific and China from February 2003 until January 2005. Prior to ev3, Mr. Cooke spent eleven years at Guidant Corporation, three years at Baxter Healthcare Corporation and two years at St. Jude Medical, Inc.
Timothy L. Lanier was appointed our President, Upper Extremities in June 2016. Mr. Lanier has over 25 years of experience in medical device and commercial operations in both small and large companies that include various medical specialties such as orthopedics, vascular, oncology and ophthalmology. Prior to joining Wright, from September 2013 to June 2016, Mr. Lanier served as Vice President of Sales of DFINE Inc., a company focused on developing minimally disruptive surgical productscommitted to the treatment of metastatic tumors and proceduresother diseases of the spine. From July 2010 to September 2013, Mr. Lanier served as Vice President of US Sales for the spine. PriorEndovascular Division of Covidien plc, a global healthcare products company, where he built a world-class sales organization dedicated to such position, Mr. Richtreating both arterial and venous disease. He joined Covidien in July 2010 through the acquisition of ev3 Inc., where he served as Area Vice President from January 2008 to July 2010. Prior to ev3, Mr. Lanier served as Vice President of Commercial Operations at Anulex Technologies, Inc. from January 2007 to January 2008. He also had increasing executive responsibility at Zimmer Orthopedics, Spine Division and Spine-Tech, Inc. from 1997 to 2007, including Vice President of Commercial Operations.
Patrick Fisher was appointed our President, Lower Extremities in June 2016. From October 2015 to June 2016, Mr. Fisher served as our Vice President, U.S. Sales. From October 2012 to October 2015, Mr. Fisher served as Vice President, U.S. Sales Directorof Wright Medical Group, Inc., and Area Business Managerfrom October 2010 to October 2012, Mr. Fisher served as Regional Vice President of NuVasiveSales - West Region.
Julie B. Andrews was appointed our Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Ms. Andrews served as Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of Wright Medical Group, Inc. from December 2005.May 2012 to October 2015. From February 1998 to May 2012, Ms. Andrews held numerous key financial positions with Medtronic, Inc., a global medical device company. Most recently, Ms. Andrews served as Medtronic’s Vice President, Finance for its spinal and biologics business units. Ms. Andrews has significant accounting, finance, and business skills as well as global experience, having held positions in worldwide planning and analysis in Medtronic Sofamor Danek and in Medtronic’s spinal and biologics business. Prior to joining NuVasive,Medtronic, Ms. Andrews worked with Thomas & Betts Corporation in Memphis, Tennessee and Thomas Havey, LLP in Chicago, Illinois.
David D. Stevens joined our board of directors as a non-executive director in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Mr. Rich served as Partner/Area Sales Manager of Bay Area Spine of DePuy Spine, Inc., a spine company and subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, from July 2004 to December 2005. Mr. Rich has a Bachelor of Labor Relations from Rutgers College, Rutgers University.

Gordon W. Van UmmersenStevens serves as our Senior Vice President, Global Product Delivery.Chairman. Mr. UmmersenStevens was a member of the board of directors of Wright Medical Group, Inc. from 2004 to 2015 and served as Senior Vice President, Product Delivery from June 2013 to January 2014 and in January 2014 was appointed to his current position. Prior to joining us, Mr. Van Ummersen spent a year in multiple leadership roles for Biomet, Inc., an orthopedic company, following the divestitureChairman of the worldwide trauma businessBoard from 2009 to October 2015 and interim Chief Executive Officer of DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.Wright from April 2011 to Biomet in June 2012. Prior to that,September 2011. He has been a private investor since 2006. Mr. Van UmmersenStevens served as WWChief Executive Officer of Accredo Health Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Medco Health Solutions, Inc., from 2005 to 2006. He was Chief Executive Officer of Accredo Health, Inc. from 1996 to 2005, served as Chairman of the Board from 1999 to 2005, and was President Traumaand Chief Operating Officer of the predecessor companies of Accredo Health from their inception in 1983 until 1996. He serves on the board of directors of Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., a publicly held company. He previously served on the board of directors of Viasystems Group, Inc., a publicly held company, from 2012 until May 2015 when it was acquired by TTM Technologies, Inc., Medco Health Solutions, Inc., a publicly held company, from 2006 until 2012 when it was acquired by Express Scripts Holding Company, and Thomas & Extremities for DePuyBetts Corporation, a publicly held company, from 2004 to 2012 when it was acquired by ABB Ltd. Mr. Stevens's qualifications to serve on our board of directors include his extensive experience serving as a chief executive officer,


including as interim chief executive officer of legacy Wright, his close familiarity with our business, and his prior experience as a director of legacy Wright.
Gary D. Blackford joined our board of directors as a non-executive director in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Mr. Blackford was a member of the board of directors of Wright Medical Group, Inc. from 2008 to 2015. From 2002 to February 2015, Mr. Blackford served as President and Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of Universal Hospital Services, Inc., a provider of medical technology outsourcing and services to the healthcare industry, and from 2007 to June 2012, General Manager, Trauma & Extremities from 2005February 2015, served as Chairman of the Board. From 2001 to 2007 and Vice President, Marketing from 2003 to 2005. Prior to joining DePuy,2002, Mr. Van Ummersen held numerous senior commercial roles at Stryker Corporation, a medical technology company, including Vice President & General Manager for US Trauma fromBlackford served as Chief Executive Officer of Curative Health Services Inc. From 1999 to 2003 and Director2001, Mr. Blackford served as Chief Executive Officer of Corporate AccountsShopforSchool, Inc. He served as Chief Operating Officer for Value Rx from 1995 to 1999.1998 and Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of MedIntel Systems Corporation from 1993 to 1994. Mr. Van Ummersen holdsBlackford currently serves on the board of directors of Halyard Health, Inc. and EnteroMedics Inc., both publicly held companies. He also serves on the board of directors of Pipeline Rx, Inc., a Mastersprivately held telepharmacy company. Mr. Blackford previously served on the board of Business Administrationdirectors of Compex Technologies, Inc., a publicly held medical device company, from 2005 until its acquisition by Encore Medical Corporation in 2006. Mr. Blackford’s qualifications to serve as a member of our board of directors include his experience as a chief executive officer and director of a healthcare services company and other companies and as a director of other public companies in the Universityhealthcare industry, his extensive experience leading healthcare companies, and his prior experience as a director of Massachusetts, Boston and a Bachelor of Science degree in Health Services Administration from Providence College.

legacy Wright.

Sean D. Carney is one of our directors and has served as a non-executive director and member of our board of directors since July 2006. Mr. Carney servesserved as our Chairman a position he has held sinceof legacy Tornier from May 2010.2010 to October 2015. Mr. Carney was initially appointed as a director of Tornier in connection with thea former securityholders’ agreement that weTornier entered into with certain holders of our securities.its shareholders. For more information regarding the securityholders’ agreement, please refer to the discussion below under “—Board“-Board Structure and Composition.” Since 1996,The securityholders’ agreement terminated by its terms in May 2016. Mr. Carney has beenis currently a private investor. From 1996 to December 2016, Mr. Carney was employed by Warburg Pincus LLC, a private equity firm, and has served as a Member and Managing Director of Warburg Pincus LLC and a General Partner of Warburg Pincus & Co. sincefrom January 2001.2001 to December 2016. Prior to joining Warburg Pincus, LLC and Warburg PincusMr. Carney was a consultant at McKinsey & Co. are part of the Warburg Pincus entities collectively referred to elsewhere in this report as Warburg Pincus,Company, Inc., a principal shareholder that owns approximately 32.7% of our outstanding ordinary shares as of February 10, 2014. He is also a member of the board of directors of MBIA Inc. and several private companies. During the past five years,management consulting company. Mr. Carney previously served on the board of directors of DexCom, Inc. and, Arch Capital Group Ltd. and MBIA Inc., botheach publicly held companies, and Bausch & Lomb Incorporated,several privately held companies. Mr. Carney’s qualifications to serve as a member of our board of directors include his substantial experience as an investor in medical device companies, his experience as a public company director, and his experience evaluating financial results.
John L. Miclot joined our board of directors as a non-executive director in October 2015 in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. Mr. Miclot was a member of the board of directors of Wright Medical Group, Inc. from 2007 to 2015. Mr. Miclot has served as President and Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of LinguaFlex, Inc., a medical device company focused on treatment of sleep disordered breathing, since August 2015. From December 2011 to December 2014, he served as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of Tengion Inc., a publicly held company that focused on organ and cell regeneration. Prior to joining Tengion, Mr. Miclot was an Executive-in Residence at Warburg Pincus, LLC. From 2008 to 2010, he was President and Chief Executive Officer of CCS Medical, Inc., a provider of products and services for patients with chronic diseases. From 2003 until 2008, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Respironics, Inc., a provider of sleep and respiratory products, and prior to such time, served in various positions at Respironics, Inc. from 1998 to 2003, including Chief Strategic Officer and President of the Homecare Division. From 1995 to 1998, he served as Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing of Healthdyne Technologies, Inc., a medical device company that was acquired by Respironics, Inc. in 1998. Mr. Miclot spent the early part of his medical career at DeRoyal Industries, Inc., Baxter International Inc., Ohmeda Medical, Inc. and Medix Inc. Mr. Miclot serves as Chairman and a member of the board of directors of Breathe Technologies, Inc., a privately held company. Mr. Carney receivedMiclot also serves as a Masterdirector of the Pittsburgh Zoo and PPG Aquarium, charitable and educational institutions, serves on the University of Iowa Tippie College of Business Administration from

Harvard Business Schoolboard of advisors and a Bachelor of Arts from Harvard College. Mr. Carney’s substantial experienceserves as an investorindustrial advisor to EQT Partners, an investment company. Mr. Miclot previously served on the board of directors of DENTSPLY International Inc., a dental products company, prior to its merger with Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. in February 2016, and directorev3 Inc., a global endovascular device company, prior to the sale of the company in medical device companies and his experience evaluating financial results have led2010. Mr. Miclot’s qualifications to serve on our board of directors toinclude his substantial experience as a chief executive officer of several medical device companies, his deep knowledge of the conclusion that he should servemedical device industry, and his prior experience as a director our Chairman and Chair and member of several of our board committees at this time in light of our business and structure.

legacy Wright.

Kevin C. O’Boyle is one of our directors and has served as a non-executive director and member of our board of directors since June 2010. In November 2012, Mr. O’Boyle servedwas appointed as Interim Vice Chairman of Tornier, a position he held for about a year. From December 2010 to OctoberJuly 2011, Mr. O’Boyle served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Advanced BioHealing Inc., a medical device company whichthat was acquired by Shire PLCplc in MayJuly 2011. From January 2003 until December 2009, Mr. O’Boyle served as the Chief Financial Officer of NuVasive, Inc., a medical device orthopedics company that completed its initial public offeringspecializing in May 2004.spinal disorders. Prior to that

time, Mr. O’Boyle served in various positions during his six years with ChromaVision Medical Systems, Inc., a publicly held medical device company specializing in the oncology market, including as its Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer. Mr. O’Boyle also held various positions during his seven years with Albert Fisher North America, Inc., a publicly held international food company, including Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Operations. Mr. O’Boyle currently serves on the board of directors of GenMark Diagnostics, Inc., ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc., and Durata Therapeutics,Sientra, Inc., all publicly tradedheld companies. Mr. O’Boyle received a Bachelorpreviously served on the board of Sciencedirectors of Durata Therapeutics, Inc. until its acquisition by Actavis plc in Accounting from the Rochester InstituteNovember 2014. Mr. O’Boyle’s qualifications to serve on our board of Technology and successfully completed the Executive Management Program at the University of California Los Angeles, John E. Anderson Graduate Business School. Mr. O’Boyle’sdirectors includes his executive experience in the healthcare industry, his experience with companies during their transition from being privately held to publicly held, and his financial and accounting expertise have ledexpertise.
Amy S. Paul joined our board of directors to the conclusion that Mr. O’Boyle should serve as a non-executive director Chair of our strategic transactions committee and a member of our audit committee at this time in light of our business and structure.

Richard B. Emmitt is one of our directors and has served as a director since July 2006. Mr. Emmitt was appointed as a directorOctober 2015 in connection with the securityholders’ agreement that we entered into with certain holdersWright/Tornier merger. Ms. Paul was a member of our securities. For more information regarding the securityholders’ agreement, please refer to the discussion below under “—Board Structure and Composition.” Mr. Emmitt served as a General Partner of The Vertical Group L.P., an investment management and venture capital firm focused on the medical device and biotechnology industries, from its inception in 1989 through December 2007. Commencing in January 2008, Mr. Emmitt has been a Member and Manager of The Vertical Group G.P., LLC, which controls The Vertical Group L.P. Mr. Emmitt currently serves on the board of directors of several privately held companies. DuringWright Medical Group, Inc. from 2008 to 2015. Ms. Paul retired in 2008 following a 26-year career with C.R. Bard, Inc., a medical device company, most recently serving as the past five years, Mr. EmmittGroup Vice President-International since 2003. She served in various positions at C.R. Bard, Inc. from 1982 to 2003, including President of Bard Access Systems, Inc., President of Bard Endoscopic Technologies, Vice President and Business Manager of Bard Ventures, Vice President of Marketing of Bard Cardiopulmonary Division, Marketing Manager for Davol Inc., and Senior Product Manager for Davol Inc. Ms. Paul previously served on the board of directors of ev3 Inc. and American Medical Systems Holdings,Derma Sciences, Inc., botha publicly held companies,company, Viking Systems, Inc., a publicly held company, until October 2012 when it was acquired by Conmed Corporation, and several privately held companies. Mr. Emmitt holdswas a Mastercommissioner of Business Administrationthe Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities from 2010 to 2013. Ms. Paul serves on the Rutgers School of Business and a Bachelor of Arts from Bucknell University. Mr. Emmitt’s substantial experience as an investor and board member of numerous medical device companies ranging from development stage private companiesPresident’s Innovation Network at Westminster College. Ms. Paul’s qualifications to public companies with substantial revenues has ledserve on our board of directors toinclude her over three decades of experience in the conclusionmedical device industry, including having served in various executive roles with responsibilities that he should serveinclude international and divisional operations as well as marketing and sales functions, her experience as a director of other public companies in the healthcare industry, and her prior experience as a memberdirector of our audit committee and strategic transactions committee at this time in light of our business and structure.

Alain Tornier is one of our directors andlegacy Wright.

Richard F. Wallman has served as a non-executive director since May 1976. Mr. Tornier assumed a leadership role in our predecessor entity in 1976, following the deathand member of his father, René Tornier, our founder. Mr. Tornier later served as our President and Chief Executive Officer until the acquisition of our company by an investor group in September 2006, when he retired as an executive officer of our company. Mr. Tornier holds a Master of Sciences degree from Grenoble University. Mr. Tornier’s significant experience in the global orthopaedics industry and deep understanding of our company’s history and operations have led our board of directors to the conclusion that he should serve as a director at this time in light of our business and structure.

Richard F. Wallman is one of our directors and has served as a director since December 2008. From 1995 through his retirement in 2003, Mr. Wallman served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Honeywell International, Inc., a diversified technology company, and AlliedSignal, Inc., a diversified technology company (prior to its merger with Honeywell International, Inc.). Prior to joining AlliedSignal, Inc. as Chief Financial Officer,, Mr. Wallman served as Controller of International Business Machines Corporation. In addition to serving as one of our directors, Mr. Wallman is also a member ofserves on the board of directors of Charles River Laboratories International, Inc., Convergys Corporation and Roper Technologies, Inc., all publicly held companies. Mr. Wallman also serves on the board of directors of Extended Stay America, Inc. and its wholly subsidiary ESH Hospitality, Inc., and Roper Industries, Inc., allboth publicly held companies. Duringcompanies, although he will be leaving the past five years,board of directors of ESH Hospitality, Inc. in May 2017. Mr. Wallman previously served on the board of directors of Ariba, Inc. as well as auto suppliersand Dana Holding Corporation, Lear Corporation and Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc., allboth publicly held companies. Mr. Wallman holds a MasterWallman’s qualifications to serve on our board of Business Administration from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business with concentrations in finance and accounting and a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Vanderbilt University. Mr. Wallman’sdirectors include his prior public company experience, including as Chief Financial Officer of Honeywell, and his significant public company director experience, and his financial experience and expertise, have ledexpertise.

Elizabeth H. Weatherman has served as a non-executive director and member of our board of directors to the conclusion that he should serve as a director, Chair of our audit committee and a member of our compensation committee at this time in light of our business and structure.

Elizabeth H. Weatherman is one of our directors and has served as a director since July 2006. Ms. Weatherman was initially appointed as a director of Tornier in connection with the securityholders’ agreement that weTornier entered into with certain holders of our securities.shareholders. For more information regarding the securityholders’ agreement, please refer to the discussion below under “—Board“-Board Structure and Composition.” The securityholders’ agreement terminated by its terms in May 2016. Ms. Weatherman ishas been a GeneralSpecial Limited Partner of Warburg Pincus LLC, a private equity firm, since January 2016. Ms. Weatherman previously was a Partner of Warburg Pincus & Co., a Member and Managing Director of Warburg Pincus LLC and a member of the firm’s Executive Management Group. Ms. Weatherman joined Warburg Pincus in 1988 and is currently responsible forprimarily focused on the firm’s U.S. healthcare investment activities. Warburg Pincus LLC and Warburg Pincus & Co. are part of the Warburg Pincus entities collectively referred to elsewhere in this report as Warburg Pincus, a principal shareholder that owns approximately 32.7% of our outstanding ordinary shares as of February 10, 2014. Ms. Weatherman currently serves on the board of directors of several privately held companies. During the past five years, Ms. Weatherman previously served on the boards of directors of several publicly held companies, primarily in the medical device industry, including ev3 Inc., Wright Medical Group, Inc., and Kyphon Inc. Ms. Weatherman’s qualifications to serve on our board of directors of ev3 Inc., a publicly held company, and Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, a privately held company. Ms. Weatherman earned a Master of Business Administration from the Stanford Graduate School of Business and a Bachelor of Arts from Mount Holyoke College. Ms. Weatherman’sinclude her extensive experience as a director of several public and private companies in the medical device industry has led our board of directors to the conclusion that she should serve as a director and a member of our compensation committee at this time in light of our business and structure.

industry.

Board Structure and Composition

We have a one-tier board structure. Our articles of association provide that the number of members of our board of directors will be determined by our board of directors, provided that our board of directors shallwill be comprised of at least one executive director and two non-executive directors. Our board of directors currently consists of sevennine directors, one of whom is ouran executive director and sixeight of whom are non-executive directors.

All eight of our non-executive directors, except Mr. Tornier, are “independent directors” under the Listing Rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market. Therefore, five of our current seven directors are “independent directors” under the Listing Rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market. Independence requirements for service on our audit committee are discussed below under “—Board Committees—Audit Committee”Committee and independence

requirements for service on our compensation committee are discussed below under “—Board Committees—Compensation Committee.Committee.Mr. Wallman and Mr. O’BoyleAll of our non-executive directors are independent under the independence definition in the Dutch Corporate Governance Code. Because we currently comply with the NASDAQ corporate governance requirements, we can deviate from the Dutch Corporate Governance Code requirement that a majority of our directors be independent within the meaning of the Dutch Corporate Governance Code provided we explain such deviation in our statutory annual report.

Our board of directors and our shareholders each have approved that our board of directors be divided into three classes, as nearly equal in number as possible, with each director serving a three-year term and one class being elected at each year’s annual general meeting of shareholders. Mr. Tornier and Ms. Weatherman are in the class of directors whose term expires at the 2014 annual general meeting of our shareholders. Messrs. Carney and Emmitt are in the class of directors whose term expires at the 2015 annual general meeting of our shareholders. Messrs. Mowry, O’Boyle and Wallman are in the class of directors whose term expires at the 2016 annual general meeting of our shareholders. At each annual general meeting of our shareholders, successors to the class of directors whose term expires at such meeting will be elected to serve for three-year terms or until their respective successors are elected and qualified.

The general meeting of shareholders appoints the members of our board of directors, subject to a binding nomination of theour board of directors in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Dutch Civil Code. Our board of directors will makemakes the binding nomination based on a recommendation of our nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee. A nominee is deemedIf the list of candidates contains one candidate for each open position to be filled, such candidate will be appointed unlessby the general meeting of shareholders opposesunless the usebinding nature of the nominations by our board of directors is set aside by the general meeting of shareholders. The binding nomination procedurenature of nomination(s) by our board of directors can only be set aside by a resolution passed with the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds majority of the votes cast which votes also representat an annual or extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, provided such two-thirds vote constitutes more than 50%one-half of our issued share capital. In such case, a new meeting is called to fill the vacancies forat which the binding nominations were initially made. Nominees for appointment are presented by the board of directors. These nominations are not binding. The resolution for appointment in such meeting shallof a member of our board of directors will require the affirmative votea majority of at least two-thirds majority of the votes cast representing more than 50%one-half of our issued share capital.

If our board of directors fails to use its right to submit a binding nomination, the general meeting of shareholders may appoint members of our board of directors with a resolution passed with the affirmative vote of at least a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, representing more than 50% of our issued share capital.

A resolution of the general meeting of shareholders to suspend a member of our board of directors requires the affirmative vote of an absolute majority of the votes cast. A resolution of the general meeting of shareholders to suspend or dismiss members of our board of directors, other than pursuant to a proposal by our board of directors, requires a majority of at least two-thirds of the votes cast, representing more than 50%one-half of our issued share capital.

With respect to the composition of our board of directors, under the terms of his employment agreement, we have agreed that Mr. Palmisano will be nominated by our board of directors for election as an executive director and a member of our board of directors at each annual general meeting of shareholders. Pursuant to a former securityholders’ agreement among Tornier,our company and certain of our former shareholders, including TMG Holdings Coöperatief U.A. (TMG), Vertical Fund I, L.P., Vertical Fund II, L.P., KCH Stockholm AB, Mr. Tornier, Warburg Pincus (Bermuda) Private Equity IX, L.P. and certain other shareholders, TMG hashad the right to designate three directors to be nominated to our board of directors for so long as TMG beneficially ownsowned at least 25% of our outstanding ordinary shares, two directors for so long as TMG beneficially ownsowned at least 10% but less than 25% of our outstanding ordinary shares and one director for so long as TMG beneficially ownsowned at least 5% but less than 10% of our outstanding ordinary shares. We agreed to use our reasonable best efforts to cause the TMG designees to be elected. AsAlthough Mr. Carney and Ms. Weatherman were initially elected to our board of February 10, 2014,directors as designees of TMG, beneficially owned 32.7%they are no longer designees since TMG no longer owns at least 5% of our outstanding ordinary shares. Messrs. Carney and Emmitt and Ms. Weatherman areThe securityholders’ agreement terminated by its terms in May 2016 upon the current directors who are designeessale by TMG of TMG.

its entire remaining ownership stake in our company.

Under our articles of association, our internal rules for the board of directors, and Dutch law, the members of our board of directors are collectively responsible for theour management, general and financial affairs, and policy and strategy of our company.strategy. Our executive director historically has been our Chief Executive Officer, who is primarily responsible for managing our day-to-day affairs as well as other responsibilities that have been delegated to the executive directorhim in accordance with our articles of association and our internal rules for the board of directors. Our non-executive directors supervise our Chief Executive Officerexecutive director and our general affairs and provide general advice to our Chief Executive Officer.him. In performing their duties, our directors are guided by the interests of our company and, shall, within the boundaries set by relevant Dutch law, must take into account the relevant interests of our stakeholders. The internal affairs of theour board of directors are governed by our internal rules for the board of directors, a copy of which is available on the Investor Relations—Corporate GovernanceRelations-Corporate Information-Governance Documents & Charters section of our corporate website atwww.tornier.comwww.wright.com.

Mr. CarneyStevens serves as our Chairman. The duties and responsibilities of ourthe Chairman include, among others: determining the agenda and chairing the meetings of our board of directors, managing our board of directors to ensure that it operates effectively, ensuring that the members of our board of directors receive accurate, timely and clear information, encouraging active engagement by all the members of our board of directors, promoting effective relationships and open communication between the non-executive directors and the executive director, and monitoring effective implementation of our board of directors decisions.

All regular meetings of our board of directors are scheduled to be held in the Netherlands. Each director has the right to cast one vote and may be represented at a meeting of our board of directors by a fellow director. Our board of directors may pass resolutions only if a majority of the directors is present at the meeting and all resolutions must be passed by a majority of the directors that have no conflict of interest present or represented. However, asAs required by Dutch law, our articles of association provide that when one or more members of our board of directors is absent or prevented from acting, the remaining members of our board of directors will be entrusted with the management of our company. The intent of this provision is to satisfy certain requirements under Dutch law and provide that, in rare circumstances, when a director is incapacitated, severely ill, or similarly absent or prevented from acting, the remaining members of our board of directors (or, in the event there are no such remaining members, a person appointed by our shareholders at a general meeting) will be entitled to act on behalf of our board of directors in the management of our company, notwithstanding the general requirement that otherwise requires a majority of our board of directors be present. In these limited circumstances, our articles of association permit our board of directors to pass resolutions even if a majority of the directors is not present at the meeting.


Subject to Dutch law and any director’s objection, resolutions may be passed in writing by a majorityall of the directors in office. Pursuant toUnder Dutch law, members of the internal rules for our board of directors a director may not participate in discussions or the deliberation and the decision-making process on a transactionsubject or subjecttransaction in relation to which he or she has a direct or indirect personal interest that conflicts with the interest of our company and business enterprise. If all directors are conflicted and in the absence of a supervisory board, the resolution will be adopted by the general meeting of shareholders, except if the articles of association prescribe otherwise. Our articles of association provide that a director will not take part in any vote on a subject or transaction in relation to which he or she has a direct or indirect personal interest that conflicts with the interest of our company and business enterprise. In such event, the other directors will be authorized to adopt the resolution. If all directors have a conflict of interest with us. Resolutions to enter into such transactions mustas mentioned above, the resolution will be approvedadopted by a majority of our board of directors, excluding such interested director orthe non-executive directors.

Board Committees

Our board of directors has four standing board committees: an audit committee, a compensation committee, a nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee, and a strategic transactions committee. Each of these committees has the responsibilities and composition described in the table below and the responsibilities described in the sections below. Our board of directors has adopted a written charter for each committee of our board of directors, whichdirectors. These charters are available on the Investor Relations—Corporate GovernanceRelations-Corporate Information-Governance Documents & Charters section of our corporate website atwww.tornier.comwww.wright.com. Our board of directors from time to time may establish other committees.

The following table summarizes the current membership of each of our four board committees.
DirectorAuditCompensationNominating, corporate governance and complianceStrategic transactions
Robert J. Palmisano
Gary D. Blackford
Sean D. CarneyChair
John L. Miclot
Kevin C. O’Boyle
Amy S. PaulChair
David D. Stevens
Richard F. WallmanChair
Elizabeth H. WeathermanChair
Audit Committee

Our

The audit committee oversees a broad range of issues surrounding our accounting and financial reporting processes and audits of our financial statements. The primary responsibilities of ourthe audit committee include:

assisting our board of directors in monitoring the integrity of our financial statements, our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements insofar as they relate to our financial statements and financial reporting obligations and any accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters, our independent auditor’s qualifications and independence, and the performance of our internal audit function and independent auditors;

appointing, compensating, retaining, and overseeing the work of any independent registered public accounting firmauditor engaged for the purpose of performing any audit, review, or attest services and for dealing directly with any such accountingauditing firm; provided, that such appointment will be subject to shareholder ratification or decision in the case of the auditor for our Dutch statutory annual accounts;

providing a medium for consideration of matters relating to any audit issues;

establishing procedures for the receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints received by our companyus regarding accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters, and for the confidential, anonymous submission by our employees of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters; and

reviewing and approving all related party transactions required to be disclosed under the U.S. federal securities laws.

Our

The audit committee reviews and evaluates, at least annually, the performance of the audit committee and its members, including compliance of the committee with its charter.

Our


The audit committee has the sole authority to select, retain, oversee, and terminate its own counsel, consultants, and advisors and approve the fees and other retention terms of such counsel, consultants, and advisors, as it deems appropriate.
The audit committee consists of Mr. Wallman (Chair), Mr. EmmittBlackford, and Mr. O’Boyle. We believe that the composition of ourthe audit committee complies with the applicable rules of the SEC and the NASDAQ Stock Market. Our board of directors has determined that each of Mr. Wallman, Mr. EmmittBlackford, and Mr. O’Boyle is an "independent director" under the rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market, an “audit committee financial expert,” as defined in the SEC rules, and satisfies the financial sophistication requirements of the NASDAQ Stock Market. TheOur board of directors also has determined that each of Messrs.Mr. Wallman, EmmittMr. Blackford, and Mr. O’Boyle meets the more stringent independence requirements for audit committee members of Rule 10A-3(b)(1) under the Exchange Act and the Listing Rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market and each of Messrs. Wallman and O’Boyle is independent under the Dutch Corporate Governance Code.

Compensation Committee

The primary responsibilities of our compensation committee, which are within the scope of the board of directors compensation policy adopted by the general meeting of our shareholders, include:

reviewing and approving corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers, evaluating the performance of these officers in light of those goals and objectives, and setting compensation of these officers based on such evaluations;

making recommendations to our board of directors with respect to incentive compensation and equity-based plans that are subject to board and shareholder approval, administering or overseeing all of our incentive compensation and equity-based plans, and discharging any responsibilities imposed on the committee by any of these plans;

reviewing and recommending to our board of directors any severance or similar termination payments proposed to be made to our Chief Executive Officer and reviewing and approving any severance or similar termination payments proposed to be made to any other executive officer;
reviewing and discussing with our Chief Executive Officer and reporting periodically to our board of directors plans for development and corporate succession plans for our executive officers and other key employees, which include transitional leadership in the event of an unplanned vacancy;
reviewing and discussing with management the “CompensationCompensation Discussion and Analysis”Analysis section of this report and based on such discussions, recommending to our board of directors whether the “CompensationCompensation Discussion and Analysis”Analysis section should be included in this report; and

approving, or recommending to our board of directors for approval, the compensation programs, and the payouts for all programs, applying to our non-executive directors, including reviewing the competitiveness of our non-executive director compensation programs and reviewing the terms to make sure they are consistent with our board of directors compensation policy adopted by the general meeting of our shareholders; andshareholders.

reviewing and discussing with our Chief Executive Officer and reporting periodically to our board of directors plans for development and corporate succession plans for our executive officers and other key employees.

OurThe compensation committee reviews and evaluates, at least annually, the performance of the compensation committee and its members, including compliance of the committee with its charter.

Our

The compensation committee has the sole authority to select, retain, oversee, and terminate its own counsel, consultants, and advisors and approve the fees and other retention terms of such counsel, consultants, and advisors, as it deems appropriate. Before selecting any such counsel, consultant or advisor, the compensation committee reviews and considers the independence of such counsel, consultant or advisor, including any other services the counsel, consultant or other advisor is providing to our company and management.
The compensation committee consists of Mr. Carney (Chair), Mr. WallmanMiclot, and Ms. Weatherman. We believe that the composition of our compensation committee complies with the applicable rules of the SEC and the NASDAQ Stock Market. TheOur board of directors has determined that each of Messrs.Mr. Carney, and WallmanMr. Miclot, and Ms. Weatherman is an "independent director" under the rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market, meets the more stringent independence requirements for compensation committee members of Rule 10C-1 under the Exchange Act and the Listing Rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market.Market and is independent under the Dutch Corporate Governance Code. None of our executive officers has served as a member of the board of directors or compensation committee of any entity that has an executive officer serving as a member of our board of directors.


Nominating, Corporate Governance and Compliance Committee

The primary responsibilities of our nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee include:

reviewing and making recommendations to our board of directors regarding the size and composition of our board of directors;

identifying, reviewing, and recommending nominees for election as directors;

making recommendations to our board of directors regarding corporate governance matters and practices, including any revisions to our internal rules for our board of directors; and

overseeing our compliance efforts with respect to our legal, regulatory, and quality systems requirements and ethical programs, including our code of business conduct, and ethics, other than with respect to matters relating to our financial statements and financial reporting obligations and any accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters, which are within the purview of the audit committee.

Our

The nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee reviews and evaluates, at least annually, the performance of the nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee and its members, including compliance of the committee with its charter.

Our

The nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee has the sole authority to select, retain, oversee, and terminate its own counsel, consultants, and advisors and approve the fees and other retention terms of such counsel, consultants, and advisors, as it deems appropriate.
The nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee consists of Ms. Paul (Chair), Mr. Carney, (Chair)Mr. Stevens, and Ms. Weatherman. We believe that the composition of our nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee complies under the applicable rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market. Our board of directors has determined that each of Ms. Paul, Mr. O’Boyle.

OurCarney, Mr. Stevens, and Ms. Weatherman is an "independent director" under the rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market.

The nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee considers all candidates recommended by our shareholders pursuant to those specific minimum qualifications that the nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee believes must be met by a recommended nominee for a position on our board of directors, which qualifications are described in the nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee’s charter, a copy of which is available on the Investor Relations—Corporate GovernanceRelations-Corporate Information-Governance Documents & Charters section of our corporate websitewww.tornier.comwww.wright.com. We have made no material changes to the procedures by which shareholders may recommend nominees to our board of directors as described in our most recent proxy statement.

Strategic Transactions Committee

The primary responsibilities of our strategic transactions committee include:

reviewing and evaluating potential opportunities for strategic business combinations, acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, divestitures, investments, and similar strategic transactions involving Tornierour company or any one or more of our subsidiaries outside the ordinary course of our business that may arise from time to time;

approving on behalf of our board of directors any strategic transaction that may arise from time to time and is deemed appropriate by the strategic transactions committee and involves total cash consideration of less than $5.0 million; provided, however, that the strategic transactions committee is not authorized to approve any strategic transaction involving the issuance of capital stock or in which any director, officer, or affiliate of Tornierour company has a material interest;

making recommendations to our board of directors concerning approval of any strategic transactions that may arise from time to time and are deemed appropriate by the strategic transactions committee and are beyond the authority of the strategic transactions committee to approve;

reviewing integration efforts with respect to completed strategic transactions from time to time and making recommendations to management and our board of directors, as appropriate;

assisting management in developing, implementing, and adhering to a strategic plan and direction for ourits activities with respect to strategic transactions and making recommendations to management and our board of directors, as appropriate;
reviewing and approving the settlement or compromise of any material litigation or claim against us; and


reviewing and evaluating potential opportunities for restructuring our business in response to completed strategic transactions or otherwise in an effort to realize anticipated cost and expense savings for, and other benefits, to our company and making recommendations to management and our board of directors, as appropriate.

Our

The strategic transactions committee reviews and evaluates periodically the performance of the committee and its members, including compliance of the committee with its charter.

Our

The strategic transactions committee has the sole authority to select, retain, oversee, and terminate its own counsel, consultants, and advisors and approve the fees and other retention terms of such counsel, consultants, and advisors, as it deems appropriate.
The strategic transactions committee consists of Mr. O’BoyleMs. Weatherman (Chair), Mr. CarneyStevens, and Mr. Emmitt.

Wallman.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

We have adopted a code of business conduct, and ethics, which applies to all of our directors, officers, and employees. OurThe code of business conduct and ethics is available on the Investor Relations—Corporate GovernanceRelations-Corporate Information-Governance Documents & Charters section of our corporate website atwww.tornier.comwww.wright.com. Any person may request a copy free of charge by writing to us at Tornier, Inc.James A. Lightman, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Wright Medical Group N.V., 10801 Nesbitt Ave South, Bloomington, Minnesota 55437.Prins Bernhardplein 200, 1097 JB Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We intend to disclose on our corporate website any amendment to, or waiver from, a provision of our code of business conduct and ethics that applies to directors and executive officers and that is required to be disclosed pursuant to the rules of the SEC and the NASDAQ Stock Market.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, and executive officers, and all persons who beneficially own more than 10% of our outstanding ordinary shares to file with the SEC initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of our ordinary shares. Directors, executive officers, and greater than 10% beneficial owners also are required to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file. To our knowledge, based on review of the copies of such reports and amendments to such reports furnished to us with respect to the year ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, and based on written representations by our directors and executive officers, all required Section 16 reports under the Exchange Act for our directors, executive officers, and beneficial owners of greater than 10% of our ordinary shares were filed on a timely basis during the year ended December 29, 2013.

25, 2016.

ITEM

Item 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Executive Compensation.

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

In this Compensation Discussion and Analysis or CD&A,(CD&A), we describe the key principles and approaches we use to determine elements of compensation paid to, awarded to and earned by the following named executive officers, whose compensation is set forth in the Summary Compensation Table found later in this report:

under “-
Executive Compensation Tables and Narratives-Summary Compensation Information”:
David H. Mowry,Robert J. Palmisano, who serves as our President and Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director and is referred to as our “CEO” in this CD&A;

Shawn T McCormick, who serves as our Chief Financial Officer;

Gordon W. Van Ummersen,Lance A. Berry, who serves as our Senior Vice President Global Product Delivery;and Chief Financial Officer;

���Stéphan Epinette, who serves as our Senior Vice President, International Commercial Operations; and

Terry M. Rich,Kevin D. Cordell, who serves as our President, U.S.;
Peter S. Cooke, who serves as our President, International; and
Robert P. Burrows, who serves as our Senior Vice President, U.S. Commercial Operations.Supply Chain.

We refer to these executive officers as our “named executive officers” and our President and Chief Executive Officer as our “CEO” in this CD&A. This CD&A should be read in conjunction with the accompanying compensation tables, corresponding notes and narrative discussion, as they provide additional information and context to our compensation disclosures.

Executive Summary

We devoted significant time and resources during 2016 to integrating the operations of legacy Wright and legacy Tornier and aligning our executives with our combined company mission, vision and values. During 2016, we made significant and measurable progress towards key business and financial objectives:
We completed over 80% of our approximately 300 integration milestones, including the integration of our global sales forces and the co-location of three of our top five international markets and consolidation into one enterprise resource planning (ERP) system.

We enjoyed better-than-expected timing of anticipated revenue dis-synergies and cost synergies from the merger.
We materially improved our balance sheet, including our days on hand (DOH) inventory, instrument set utilization and days sales outstanding (DSO).
We sold our non-core European Large Joints business in October 2016.
We removed significant uncertainty with our agreement to settle a substantial portion of our metal-on-metal hip litigation claims in November 2016.
We grew our core net sales at above-market growth rates. Our total net sales from continuing operations were $690.4 million for 2016, representing annual growth of 70.3% over 2015.
One of our key executive compensation objectives is to link pay to performance by aligning the financial interests of our executives with those of our shareholders and by emphasizing pay for performance in our compensation programs. We believe westrive to accomplish this objective primarily through the operation of our annual cashperformance incentive plan (PIP), which compensates our executive officersexecutives for achieving annual corporate and divisional financial and other goals. For 2016, we had four corporate performance goalsmeasures. The table below sets forth the three corporate performance measures for 2016, in each case, from continuing operations and as adjusted for certain items, which resulted in the casea payout.
2016 corporate performance metricPayout
Global extremities and biologics net salesBetween target and above target
Adjusted EBITDAAt maximum
Free cash flowAt maximum
Overall weighted corporate performance achievement rating155.8%
For each corporate performance measure, except one, we achieved between target and maximum levels of someperformance, resulting in an overall weighted corporate performance achievement rating of 155.8% of target. The fourth corporate performance goal related to AUGMENT® Bone Graft, as to which there was no payout. For our divisional performance measures, we also achieved overall performance achievement weighted average ratings above target. These annual PIP payouts resulted in overall executive compensation levels that are above our target positioning, which align with our above-market sales growth and significant progress towards key business and financial objectives during 2016.
Shareholder Outreach Efforts and 2017 Changes to Our Executive Compensation
Looking forward to 2017, we intend to continue to align and focus our executives on key strategic priorities and financial objectives. In furtherance of this objective, we have spent considerable time reviewing our executive compensation program to ensure that it not only motivates our executives, but also aligns with shareholder interests and prevailing market practice.
As part of this review, we reached out and listened to shareholders. In fiscal 2016, we contacted our top 50 institutional shareholders, representing approximately 86% of our executive officers, divisional financial performance goalsoutstanding ordinary shares and attended over 300 meetings for investors and interested investors. For the individual performance goals.

During 2013, we made significant progress towardinvestor meetings, our three main strategic initiatives:

CEO, Chief Financial Officer and/or Chief Communications Officer attended. The transitionagenda for these meetings requested feedback from investors and shareholders and generally included: (1) a review of our U.S. sales organization. We spent most of 2013 transitioning our U.S. sales organization fromoperations and results to date; (2) a network of independent sales agencies that sold our full product portfolio to a combination of direct sales teams and independent sales agencies that are individually focused on selling either upper extremity products or lower extremity products across the territories that they serve. Over 85%summary of our U.S. revenues is now understrategic priorities and focus; and (3) a new agreement or transitioned to a direct sales model. During 2014, we will turn our focus to completing the splitreview of our sales force into either dedicated upper or lower extremities representativescompensation philosophy and on building new sales teamsits alignment with our strategic direction. The three most common themes noted from investors and completingshareholders include incorporating the training and optimizationuse of performance-based equity awards, eliminating our sales representatives. We believe the transition will position us to leverage our sales force and broad product portfolio toward our goal of achieving above market extremities revenue growth and margin expansion over the long term.

The integration of OrthoHelix. The 2013 transition of our U.S. sales organization was closely connected to the integration of many of the historical OrthoHelix distributors into our overall U.S. lower extremities sales organization. During 2013, we received CE Mark approval to sell the majority of our OrthoHelix products internationally and have since begun to selectively launch these products in certain markets, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom. In addition, we completed the integration of the OrthoHelix sales, marketing, and research and development activities into our global teams.

The launch of our Aequalis Ascend Flex. We completed the limited user release and commercial launch of the Aequalis Ascend Flex convertible shoulder system during 2013. We believe that the Aequalis Ascend Flex has further strengthened our market-leading shoulder product portfolio by providing surgeons with a convertible pressed-fit reversed solution, while also expanding our addressable market for shoulder products. We completed the training and education of over 150 surgeons on the Aequalis Ascend Flex during 2013 and plan to increase the number of instrument sets available to the field during 2014, both in the United States and internationally, and continue to train surgeons to further increase market acceptance.

Although we believe we made great stridessingle trigger change-in-control provision in our businessequity plan and strategic initiatives during 2013, our financial performance, as measured by certain key performance indicators, including in particular revenue and EBITDA, was below our internal expectations set at the beginning of 2013. Although we experienced increased revenues in 2013 compared to 2012, this increase was primarilyholding an annual say-on-pay vote.

As a result of our acquisition of OrthoHelix,this review and based on feedback from investors and shareholders, we intend to a lesser extent, an increase in upper extremity joints and trauma revenue primarily as a result of the continued increase in sales of our Aequalis Ascend shoulder system, including the Aequalis Ascend Flex that was launched in the third quarter of 2013. Our 2013 revenue, however, was negatively impacted by disruption in our U.S. sales channel due to our strategic initiative to establish separate sales channels that are individually focused on selling either upper extremity products or lower extremity products. During 2013, we incurred a net loss of $36.4 million compared to a net loss of $21.7 million for 2012.

Our financial performance during 2013 hadimplement the following impact onnew executive compensation practices during 2017:

Performance-Based AwardsWe intend to change the mix of our executive long-term incentive awards to incorporate performance-based awards. We plan to move to a mix comprised of one-third performance-based awards, one-third time-based stock options and one-third time-based restricted stock unit awards. We anticipate that the performance-based awards will vest upon achievement of performance goals over a three-year performance period.
Double Trigger VestingWe intend to submit a new equity and incentive plan to a vote of our shareholders at our 2017 annual general meeting in June. We anticipate this new plan will incorporate several new features, one of which is a new double trigger change-in-control vesting provision.

Minimum Vesting PeriodsWe intend to incorporate into the new plan minimum vesting provisions that will require all equity awards under the new plan to contain minimum vesting periods of at least one year and three years for time-based full value awards granted to employees.
Clawback PolicyWe intend to adopt a clawback policy that will authorize recovery of gains from incentive compensation, including equity awards, in the event of certain financial restatements.
Annual Say-on-Pay VoteWe intend to provide our shareholders with a say-on-pay vote every year as opposed to our current practice of every three years.
Compensation Highlights and Best Practices
Our compensation practices include many best pay programs:

Payouts for corporate and divisional financial performance goals under our cash incentive plan were substantially below target levels.

Because our threshold EBITDA performance goal was not met, there were no payouts for achievement of individual performance goals bypractices that support our executive officers.compensation objectives and principles, and benefit our shareholders.

Overall 2013 plan payoutsWhat We Do:
Pay for PerformanceWe tie compensation directly to financial and other performance metrics. Our annual PIP pays out only if certain levels of performance are met. In 2017, we intend to grant performance-based awards, which will comprise of one-third of executives’ long-term incentive and be paid out only if certain levels of performance are met.
Bonus CapsWe cap our PIP bonuses and will cap our new performance-based awards at 200% of target.
Performance Measure MixWe use a mix of performance measures within our PIP.
At-risk PayA significant portion of our executive compensation is “performance-based” or “at risk.”
Equity-based PayA significant portion of our executive compensation is “equity-based” and in the form of equity awards.
LTI Grant GuidelinesWe have adopted and review annually long-term incentive guidelines for the grant of equity awards.
Long-term VestingValue received under equity awards is tied to three to four-year vesting and any value from stock options is contingent upon long-term stock price performance. Our performance-based awards will vest only if certain levels of performance are achieved over a three-year performance period.
Clawback PolicyOur PIP and stock incentive plan include “clawback” mechanisms to recoup incentive compensation if it is determined that executives engaged in certain conduct adverse to our interests.
Stock Ownership GuidelinesWe maintain stock ownership guidelines for all our executives.
Independent Committee and ConsultantWe have an independent compensation committee which is advised by an independent external compensation consultant.
What We Don't Do:
No RepricingWe do not allow repricing or exchange of any equity awards without shareholder approval.
No Excessive PerquisitesWe do not provide excessive perquisites to our executives.
No Tax Gross-UpsWe do not provide tax “gross-up” payments to our executives, other than customary tax gross-up payments under our relocation policy and to our CEO under his employment agreement.
No Hedging or PledgingWe do not allow our employees to engage in hedging transactions, including short sales, transactions in publicly traded options, such as puts, calls and other derivatives, and pledging our securities.
No Dividends on Unvested AwardsWe do not pay dividends on unvested equity awards.
Say-on-Pay Vote
We are required to provide our shareholders with an advisory non-binding vote on the compensation paid to our named executive officers, were low, ranging between 6% and 30% of target.

Since most of our executives’ pay is variable compensation tied to financial results or share price, and not fixed compensation, these low cash incentive plan payouts resulted in actual total compensation for our executives substantially below our targeted range of 50th to 75th percentile of a group of similarly sized peer companies for 2013.

Key 2013 Compensation-Related Actions

During 2013,or say-on-pay vote. In addition, we took a number of actions that supported our executive compensation philosophy of ensuring that our executive pay program reinforces our corporate mission, vision and values, is reflective of our performance, is market competitiveare required every six years to attract and retain key employees and is aligned with the interests ofask our shareholders includingto indicate the following:

Compensation review. Our compensation committee reviewedfrequency with which they believe a say-on-pay vote should occur. We last asked our formal compensation objectives and principlesshareholders to guide executive pay decisions, which are described in more detail below.

Independent consultant. Our compensation committee engaged an independent compensation consultant, Mercer (US) Inc., to provide executive pay advice to our compensation committee. During 2013, at the request of the compensation committee, Mercer recommended a peer group of companies, collected relevant market data from these companies to allow the compensation committee to compare elements of our pay program to those of our peers, provided information on executive pay trends and implications for our company and made other recommendations to our compensation committee regarding our executive compensation program.

LTI grant guidelines. Our board of directors, upon recommendation of our compensation committee, adopted long-term incentive grant guidelines for the grant of equity awards to our employees under the Tornier N.V. 2010 Incentive Plan.

Executive officer changes. In February 2013, we appointed David H. Mowry as President and Chief Executive Officer on a non-interim basis and in June 2013, Mr. Mowry was elected as our executive director by our shareholders. In June 2013, we hired Gordon W. Van Ummersen as an executive officer and who currently serves as our Senior Vice President, Global Product Delivery. During 2013, we realigned and streamlined our executive management structure by reducing the number of direct reports to our CEO.

Hedging and pledging. During 2013, we amended our code of conduct on insider trading and confidentiality to prohibit our executive officers from engaging in hedging transactions, such as short sales, transactions in publicly traded options, such as puts, calls and other derivatives, and pledging our shares in any significant respect.

Say-on-pay. We honored the desireindicate their preferred frequency of a significant portion of our shareholders, whosay-

on-pay vote at our 2011 annual general meeting. At this meeting, ofour shareholders supportedvoted overwhelmingly for a “say-on-pay” votefrequency of every three years, and accordingly, did not submityears. Accordingly, we last submitted a “say-on-pay”say-on-pay proposal to our shareholders during 2013. Atat our 20112014 annual general meeting of shareholders,held on June 26, 2014. At this meeting, over 99% of the votes cast by our shareholders were in favor of our “say-on-pay”say-on-pay vote.
At our 2017 annual general meeting to be held in June 2017, our shareholders will have the opportunity again to vote on a say-on-pay proposal. Accordingly,In addition, our shareholders will have the opportunity again to provide an advisory vote on the frequency of our say-on-pay vote.
Because of the change in our shareholder base since 2011 and the current preference of several shareholders as expressed to us during our shareholder outreach efforts, our board of directors, upon recommendation of the compensation committee, generally believesintends to recommend a say-on-pay vote frequency of every year. We have determined that such results affirmed shareholder supporta say-on-pay vote every year is the best approach for our company and shareholders for a number of reasons, including:
It is consistent with the preference of many of our approachshareholders.
It allows our shareholders to provide timely, direct input on our executive compensation philosophy, policies and practices as disclosed in our proxy statement each year.
It is consistent with our review of core elements of our executive compensation program annually.
It is consistent with our efforts to engage in an ongoing dialogue with shareholders on executive compensation and did not believe it was necessary to make; and therefore, we have not made, any significant changes to our executive pay program solely in response to that vote. We intend to submit a “say-on-pay” proposal to our shareholders again at our 2014 annual general meeting of shareholders.corporate governance matters.

Compensation Best Practices

We maintain certain best pay practices, which support our executive compensation objectives and principles, and benefit our shareholders. These practices include the following:

Pay for performance. We tie compensation directly to financial performance. Our annual cash incentive plan pays out only if certain minimum threshold levels of financial performance are met. For our annual cash incentive awards, we establish threshold levels of performance for each performance measure that must be met for there to be a payout for that performance measure. Additionally, the threshold level of adjusted EBITDA performance must be met for there to be any payout for individual performance under our annual cash incentive plan.

Bonus caps. Our annual cash incentive awards have maximum levels of financial performance. At maximum or greater than maximum levels of performance, our annual cash incentive plan payouts are capped at 150% of target.

Performance measure mix. We utilize a mix of performance measures within our annual cash incentive plan.

At-risk pay. A significant portion of our executives’ compensation is “performance-based” or “at risk.” For 2013, 79% of target total direct compensation was performance-based for our CEO, and between 64% and 84% of target total direct compensation for our other named executive officers was performance-based, assuming grant date fair values for equity awards.

Equity-based pay. A significant portion of our executives’ compensation is “equity-based” and in the form of stock-based incentive awards. For 2013, 63% of target total direct compensation for our CEO and between 44% and 76% of target total direct compensation for our other named executive officers was equity-based, assuming grant date fair values for equity awards.

Four-year vesting. Value received under our long-term equity-based incentive awards is tied to four-year vesting and any value received by executives from stock option grants is contingent upon long-term stock price performance in that stock options have value only if the market value of our ordinary shares exceeds the exercise price of the options.

No repricing. Under the terms of our stock incentive plan, the repricing or exchange of any equity awards is prohibited without shareholder approval.

Clawback policy. Our stock incentive plan and related award agreements include a “clawback” mechanism if it is determined that our executives engaged in certain conduct adverse to our company’s interests.

No tax gross-ups. We do not provide tax “gross up” payments in connection with any compensation, benefits or perquisites provided to our executives.

Limited perquisites. We provide only limited modest perquisites to our executives.

Stock ownership guidelines. We maintain stock ownership guidelines for all of our executive officers.

No hedging or pledging. We prohibit our executive officers from engaging in hedging transactions, such as short sales, transactions in publicly traded options, such as puts, calls and other derivatives, and pledging our shares in any significant respect.

Compensation Objectives and Principles

Philosophies

Our executive compensation policies, plans and programs seek to enhance our profitability,financial performance, and thus shareholder value, by aligning the financial interests of our executives with those of our shareholders and by emphasizing pay for performance.pay-for-performance. Specifically, our executive compensation programs are designed to:

Reinforce our corporate mission, vision and values;
Attract and retain executives important to the success of our company and the creation of value for our shareholders.company;

Reinforce our corporate mission, vision and values.

Align the interests of our executives with the interests of our shareholders.shareholders; and

Reward our executives for progress toward our corporate mission and vision, the achievement of company performance objectives, the creation of shareholder value in the shortshort- and long termlong-term, and their general contributions to the success of our company.

To achieve these objectives, ourthe compensation committee makes executive compensation decisions based on the following principles:

philosophies:
Base salary and total compensation levels will generally be targeted to be within thea reasonable range of the 5067th to 75th percentile of a group of similarly sizedsimilarly-sized peer companies. However, the specific competitiveness of any individual executive’s salary and compensation will be determined considering factors like the executive’s experience, skills and capabilities, contributions as a member of the executive management team, and contributions to our overall performance. Pay levels will also reflectperformance, and the sufficiency of total compensation potential and structure to ensure the retention of an executive when considering the executive’s compensation potential that may be available elsewhere.

At least two-thirds of the CEO’s compensation and half of other executives’ compensation opportunity should be in the form of variable compensation that is tied to financial results and/or share price.creation of shareholder value.

The portion of total compensation that is performance-based or at-risk should increase with an executive’s overall responsibilities, job level, and compensation. However, compensation programs should not encourage excessive risk-taking by executives.behavior among executives and should support our commitment to corporate compliance.

A primaryPrimary emphasis should be placed on company performance as measured against goals approved by ourthe compensation committee rather than on individual performance.

At least half of the CEO’s compensation and one-third of other executives’ compensation opportunity should be in the form of stock-based incentive awards.

Determination of Compensation

Role of Compensation Committee and Board. The responsibilities of our compensation committee include reviewing and approving corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of our executive officers, evaluating each executive’s performance in light of those goals and objectives and, either as a committee or together with the other directors, determining and approving each executive’s compensation, including performance-based compensation based on these evaluations (and, in the case of the executives, other than the CEO, the CEO’s evaluation of such executive’s individual performance). Consistent with our shareholder-approved compensation policy for our board of directors, the compensation package for our CEO is determined by the non-executive directors, based upon recommendations from the compensation committee.

In setting or recommending executive compensation for our named executive officers, the compensation committee considers the following primary factors:

each executive’s position within the company and the level of responsibility;

the ability of the executive to impact key business initiatives;

the executive’s individual experience and qualifications;

compensation paid to executives of comparable positions by companies similar to our company;

company performance, as compared to specific pre-established objectives;

individual performance, generally and as compared to specific pre-established objectives;

the executive’s current and historical compensation levels;

advancement potential and succession planning considerations;

an assessment of the risk that the executive would leave our company and the harm to our company’s business initiatives if the executive left;

the retention value of executive equity holdings, including outstanding stock options and stock awards;

the dilutive effect on the value of our shareholders’ interests of long-term equity-based incentive awards; and

anticipated share-based compensation expense as determined under applicable accounting rules.

The compensation committee also considers the recommendations of our CEO with respect to executive compensation to be paid to other executives. The significance of any individual factor described above in setting executive compensation will vary from year to year and may vary among our executives. In making its final decision regarding the form and amount of compensation to be paid to our named executive officers (other than our CEO), our compensation committee considers and gives great weight to the recommendations of our CEO recognizing that due to his reporting and otherwise close relationship with each executive, the CEO often is in a better position than the compensation committee to evaluate the performance of each executive (other than himself). In making its final decision regarding the form and amount of compensation to be paid to our CEO, the compensation committee considers the results of the CEO’s self-review and his individual annual performance review by the compensation committee, benchmarking data gathered by Mercer and the recommendations of our non-executive directors.

Role of Management. Three members of our executive team play a role in our executive compensation process and regularly attend meetings of our compensation committee – our CEO, Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources and HPMS and Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary. Our CEO assists our compensation committee primarily by making formal recommendations regarding the amount and type of compensation to be paid to our executives (other than himself). In making such recommendations, our CEO considers many of the same factors listed above that the compensation committee considers in setting executive compensation, including in particular the results of each executive’s annual performance review and the executive’s achievement of his or her individual management performance objectives established in connection with our annual cash incentive plan described below. Our Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources and HPMS assists our compensation committee primarily by gathering compensation related data regarding our executives and coordinating the exchange of such information and other executive compensation information among the members of our compensation committee, our compensation committee’s compensation consultant and management in anticipation of compensation committee meetings. Our Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary assists our compensation committee primarily by ensuring compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and educating the committee on executive compensation trends and best practices from a corporate governance perspective. Final deliberations and decisions regarding the compensation to be paid to each of our executives, however, are made by our board of directors or compensation committee without the presence of such executive.

Role of Consultant. Our compensation committee has retained the services of Mercer to provide executive compensation advice. Mercer’s engagement by the compensation committee includes reviewing and advising on all significant aspects of executive compensation. This includes base salaries, short-term cash incentives and long-term equity incentives for our executive officers, and cash compensation and long-term equity incentives for our non-executive directors. At the request of the compensation committee, each year, Mercer recommends a peer group of companies, collects relevant market data from these companies to allow the compensation committee to compare elements of our compensation program to those of our peers, provides information on executive compensation trends and implications for our company and makes other recommendations to the compensation committee regarding certain aspects of our executive compensation program. Our management, principally our Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources and HPMS and the chair of our compensation committee, regularly consult with representatives of Mercer before compensation committee meetings. A representative of Mercer is invited on a regular basis to attend, and sometimes attends, meetings of our compensation committee. In making its final decision regarding the form and amount of compensation to be paid to our executives, our compensation committee considers the information gathered by and recommendations of Mercer. The compensation committee values especially Mercer’s benchmarking information and input regarding best practices and trends in executive compensation matters.

Use of Peer Group and Other Market Data. To help determine appropriate levels of compensation for certain elements of our executive compensation program, our compensation committee reviews annually the compensation levels of our named executive officers and other executives against the compensation levels of comparable positions with companies

similar to our company in terms of products, operations and revenues. The elements of our executive compensation program to which the compensation committee “benchmarks” or uses to base or justify a compensation decision or to structure a framework for compensating executives include base salary, short-term cash incentive opportunity and long-term equity incentives. With respect to other elements of our executive compensation program, such as perquisites, severance and change in control arrangements, our compensation committee benchmarks these elements on a periodic or as needed basis and in some cases uses peer group or market data more as a “market check” after determining the compensation on some other basis.

The compensation committee believes that compensation paid by peer group companies is more representative of the compensation required to attract, retain and motivate our executive talent than broader survey data. The compensation committee believes that the compensation paid by the peer companies which are in the same business, with similar products and operations, and with revenues in a range similar to ours generally provides more relevant comparisons.

In February 2012, Mercer worked with our compensation committee to identify a peer group and recommended and the committee approved a peer group of 15 companies. Companies in the peer group are public companies in the health care equipment and supplies business with products and operations similar to those of our company, and which had annual revenues generally within the range of one-half to two times our annual revenues. The February 2012 peer group included the following companies:

American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc.Thoratec CorporationExactech, Inc.
Wright Medical Group, Inc.Arthrocare CorporationCyberonics, Inc.
Volcano CorporationMerit Medical Systems, Inc.Alphatec Holdings, Inc.
Nuvasive, Inc.ICU Medical, Inc.Conceptus, Inc.
Zoll Medical CorporationNxStage Medical, Inc.RTI Biologics, Inc.

The table below sets forth revenue and market capitalization information regarding the February 2012 peer group and Tornier’s position within the peer group as of September 2012, which was the date that Mercer used to compile an executive compensation analysis which our compensation committee used in connection with its recommendations and decisions regarding certain aspects of executive compensation for 2013:

   Annual revenue
(in millions)
  Market capitalization
(in millions)
 

25th percentile

  $ 217   $ 629  

Median

   333    863  

75th percentile

   437    996  

Tornier

   267    752  

Percentile rank

   31  43

Our compensation committee used the February 2012 peer group to assist the compensation committee in making recommendations and decisions regarding base salaries, annual incentive plan target opportunities and long- term equity incentives for 2013.

In February 2013, Mercer worked with our compensation committee to identify a revised peer group since some of the companies in the February 2012 peer group were no longer public reporting companies due to acquisitions or otherwise. Mercer recommended and the compensation committee approved a revised peer group of 16 companies. Similar to the February 2012 peer group, companies in the February 2013 peer group are public companies in the health care equipment and supplies business with products and operations similar to those of our company, and which had annual revenues generally within the range of one-half to two times our annual revenues. The February 2013 peer group included the following companies:

Angiodynamics Inc.*Thoratec CorporationExactech, Inc.
Wright Medical Group, Inc.Arthrocare CorporationCyberonics, Inc.
Volcano CorporationMerit Medical Systems, Inc.Alphatec Holdings, Inc.
Nuvasive, Inc.ICU Medical, Inc.Conceptus, Inc.

Orthofix International N.V.*

Masimo Corporation*

NxStage Medical, Inc.RTI Biologics, Inc.

*New additions since the February 2012 peer group.

The table below sets forth revenue and market capitalization information regarding the February 2013 peer group and Tornier’s position within the peer group as of October 2013, which was the date that Mercer used to compile an executive compensation analysis that our compensation committee used in connection with its recommendations and decisions regarding executive compensation for 2014:

   Annual revenue
(in millions)
  Market capitalization
(in millions)
 

25th percentile

  $248   $434  

Median

   346    995  

75th percentile

   421    1,267  

Tornier

   298    924  

Percentile rank

   38  47

Our compensation committee used the February 2013 peer group to assist the compensation committee in making recommendations and decisions regarding base salaries and annual incentive plan target opportunities for 2014 and will use this same peer group later in 2014 to assist the compensation committee in determining long-term equity incentives for 2014.

In reviewing benchmarking data, our compensation committee recognizes that benchmarking may not always be appropriate as a stand-alone tool for setting compensation due to aspects of our business and objectives that may be unique to our company. Nevertheless, our compensation committee believes that gathering this information is an important part of its compensation-related decision-making process. However, where a sufficient basis for comparison does not exist between the peer group or survey data and an executive, the compensation committee gives less weight to the peer group and survey data. For example, relative compensation benchmarking analysis does not consider individual specific performance or experience or other case-by-case factors that may be relevant in hiring or retaining a particular executive.

Market Positioning. In general, we target base salary and total compensation levels within the range of the 50th to 75th percentile of our peer group. However, the specific competitiveness of any individual executive’s pay will be determined considering factors like the executive’s skills and capabilities, contributions as a member of the executive management team and contributions to our overall performance. The compensation committee will also consider the sufficiency of total compensation potential and the structure of pay plans to ensure the hiring or retention of an executive when considering the compensation potential that may be available elsewhere.

Executive Compensation Components

The principal elements of our executive compensation program for 20132016 were:

base salary;

short-term cash incentive compensation;

long-term equity-based incentive compensation, in the form of stock options and restricted stock unit (RSU) awards; and


other compensation arrangements, such as benefits made generally available to our other employees, limited and modest executive benefits and perquisites, and severance and change in control arrangements.

In determining the form of compensation for our named executive officers, our compensation committee views these elements of our executive pay program as related but distinct. Our compensation committee does not believe that significant compensation derived by an executive from one element of our compensation program should necessarily result in a reduction in the amount of compensation the executive receives from other elements. At the same time, our compensation committee does not believe that minimal compensation derived from one element of compensation should necessarily result in an increase in the amount the executive should receive from one or more other elements of compensation.

Except as otherwise described in this CD&A, ourthe compensation committee has not adopted any formal or informal policies or guidelines for allocating compensation between long-term and currently paid out compensation, between cash and non-cash compensation, or among different forms of non-cash compensation. However, ourthe compensation committee’s philosophy is to make a greater percentage of an executive’s compensation performance-based, and therefore at risk, as the executive’s position changes and responsibility increases given the influence more senior level executives generally have on company performance. Thus, individuals with greater roles and responsibilities associated with achieving our company’s objectives should bear a greater proportion of the risk that those goals are not achieved and should receive a greater proportion of the reward if objectives are met or surpassed. For example, this philosophy is illustrated by the higher annual cash incentive targets and long-term equity incentives of our CEO compared to our other executives. In addition,Accordingly, our objective is that at least two-thirds of the CEO’s compensation and halfone-half of other executives’ compensation opportunity be in the form of variable compensation that is tied to financial results or share price and that at least half of the CEO’s compensation and one-third of other executives’ compensation opportunity be in the form of stock-based incentive awards.

The overall mix of annual base salaries, target annual cash incentive awards and grant date fair value long-term incentive awards as a percent of target total direct compensation for our CEO and other named executive officers as a group for 20132016 is provided below. The value of the long-term incentives represented is based on the grant date fair value of stock options and stockRSU awards granted during 2013.2016. Actual long-term incentive value will be based on long-term stock price performance. OtherAll other compensation including discretionary and contingent sign-on bonuses and perquisites, areis excluded from the table below.

Base Salary

Overview. We provide a base salary for our named executive officers which,that, unlike some of the other elements of our executive compensation program, is not subject to company or individual performance risk. We recognize the need for most executives to receive at least a portion of their total compensation in the form of a guaranteed base salary that is paid in cash regularly throughout the year. Base salary amountssalaries are established under each executive’s employment agreement,upon hiring an executive, and are subject to subsequent upward adjustments by our compensation committee, or in the case of any executive who is also a director, our board of directors, upon recommendation of our compensation committee.

annual adjustments.

Setting Initial Salaries for New Executives. We initially fix base salaries for our executives at a level we believe enables us to hire and retain them in a competitive environment and to reward satisfactory individual performance and a satisfactory level of contribution to our overall business objectives. During 2013, one of our named executive officers, Mr. Van Ummersen, was hired. In establishing Mr. Van Ummersen’s initial base salary at $350,000, our compensation committee considered the executive’s prior experience, his success in serving in those positions, his most recent base salary and other compensation at his prior employer, as well as the base salaries of our other executives and our compensation committee’s general knowledge of the competitive market. Market pay levels are based in part on the most recent Mercer executive compensation analysis performed for our compensation committee. Although Mr. Van Ummersen’s base salary is slightly below the 75th percentile of our peer group for similarly titled executives, the compensation committee believed it was necessary to set his base salary at such a level to attract him to our company. In addition, the compensation committee believed Mr. Van Ummersen’s base salary should be around the same level as Mr. Rich’s.

Annual Salary Increases. We typically increasereview the base salaries of our named executive officers in the beginning of each year following the completion of our prior year individual performance reviewsreviews. If appropriate, we increase base salaries to recognize annual increases in the cost of living and superior individual performance and to ensure that our base salaries remain market competitive. AnnualIn addition, with respect to Mr. Palmisano, we also take into consideration his employment agreement which provides that we review his base salary at least annually for any increase. We refer to annual base salary increases as a result of cost of living adjustments and individual performance are referred to as “merit increases.” In addition, we may make additional upward adjustments to an executive’s base salary to compensate the executive for assuming increased roles and responsibilities, to retain an executive at risk of recruitment by other companies, and/or to bring an executive’s base salary closer to the 50th to 75th percentileour target market positioning of companies in our peer group. We refer to these base salary increases as “market adjustments.”

The table below sets forth base salaries effective as of February 1, 2013, the percentage increases compared to 2012 base salaries, and the 2013 base salaries compared to the 50th percentile of our February 2012 peer group for each of our named executive officers who were executives at the time of the merit increase:

Name

  2013
base salary
($)
   2013
base salary %
increase
compared to
2012
  

2013 base
salary
compared to

peer group
50th
percentile

David H. Mowry(1)

  $450,000     16.9 18% below

Shawn T McCormick

   354,812     1.4 11% above

Stéphan Epinette(2)

   312,371     6.2 10% below

Terry M. Rich

   359,624     2.8 10% above

(1)Mr. Mowry’s2016 base salary percentage increase is compared to his prior base salary of $385,000, which represented his base salary as a result of his promotion to Interim President and Chief Executive Officer in November 2012.
(2)Mr. Epinette’s base salary is paid in Euros and was €234,286 for 2013. For purposes of the table and the peer group comparison, a rate of one Euro to $1.33329 was used to convert Mr. Epinette’s base salary into U.S. dollars.

The merit increases for our named executive officers who were executives at the time of the increase in February 2013 ranged from 1.4%zero to 3.0%4.0% over 2012their respective 2015 base salaries. The percentage meritonly upward market adjustment made during 2016 was a 10.0% increase for a particular executive largely depends upon the results of the executive’s performance review for the previous year.in Mr. McCormick and Mr. Rich received smaller merit increases than other executive officers since their merit increases were pro-rated based on their respective hire dates.

In addition to merit increases, Mr. Mowry and Mr. Epinette received market adjustments to their base salaries. In evaluating the performance of Mr. Mowry and the amount of his 2013Cordell’s base salary increase, the compensation committee reviewed Mr. Mowry’s self-review, discussedin connection with his performance, considered the benchmarking data gathered by Mercer and sought the input from the non-executive directors. In assessing the performance of Mr. Mowry, the compensation committee evaluated primarily his abilitypromotion to achieve his goals and objectives and lead the company. Mr. Mowry’s percentage increasePresident, U.S. in base salary wasJune 2016 to bring his base salary closer to our target market positioning of companies


in our peer group. We believe the 50th percentile. Even after such upward market adjustment,base salaries of all of our named executive officers are within a reasonable range of our targeted positioning among our peer group, other than Mr. Mowry’sBurrows whose 2016 base salary was belowabove the 25th percentile. The compensation committee believed the market positioning ofrange. Mr. Mowry’s base salaryBurrows was appropriate in light of hisa consultant for legacy Wright prior base salaryto becoming a full-time employee and that 2013 would be his first full year serving as CEO. In addition, the compensation committee believes such market positioning is consistent with typical market practice with respect to executives new to a particular position. The compensation committee expects Mr. Mowry’s base salary to move closer to the 50th percentile as his tenure increases. The percentage increase in Mr. Epinette’s base salary was due to a merit increase of 3.0% and an upward market adjustment of €7,000 to bring his base salary closerreflects a premium that was required to recruit him to a full-time position.
2016 Base Salaries. The table below sets forth the 50th percentile. Even after such upward2015 base salaries (which were effective October 1, 2015 with the completion of the Wright/Tornier merger) of our named executive officers, their 2016 base salaries effective April 1, 2016, and in the case of Mr. Cordell, effective June 10, 2016 with his promotion to President, U.S., and the percentage increase compared to their 2015 base salaries:
Name 2015
base salary
($)
 
2016
base salary
($)
 2016 base salary % increase compared to 2015 base salary
Robert J. Palmisano $886,200 $921,648 4.0%
Lance A. Berry 397,500 413,400 4.0%
Kevin D. Cordell (1)
 397,500 454,740 14.4%
Peter S. Cooke 384,000 384,000 0.0%
Robert P. Burrows 503,500 518,605 3.0%
_________________
(1)    Mr. Cordell’s 2016 base salary reflects his 4% merit increase in February 2016 and his 10% market adjustment Mr. Epinette’s base salary was slightly below the 50th percentile.

2014in connection with his promotion in June 2016.

2017 Base Salaries. In February 2014,2017, we set the following base salaries for 20142017 for our named executive officers:officers effective April 1, 2017: Mr. MowryPalmisano ($550,000)958,514), Mr. McCormickBerry ($365,456)450,000), Mr. Van UmmersenCordell ($356,122)470,656), Mr. Epinette (€240,846)Cooke ($397,440) and Mr. RichBurrows ($369,694), representing534,163). The 2017 base salaries represent merit increases between 2.8% andof 3.0% and anto 4.0% over their respective 2016 base salaries. No upward market adjustment for Mr. Mowry to bring his base salary closer to the 50th percentile. Even after such upward market adjustment, Mr. Mowry’s base salary is at the 25th percentile of our February 2013 peer group.

adjustments were made.

Short-Term Cash Incentive Compensation

Our short-term cash incentive compensation is paid as an annual cash payoutbonus under our corporate performance incentive planPIP and in the case of Mr. Epinette, also under our French incentive compensation scheme.

Corporate Performance Incentive Plan. Annual cash payouts under our corporate performance incentive plan areis intended to compensate executives as well as other employees, for achieving annual corporate financial performance goals and, in some cases, divisional financial performance goals, and in most cases, individual performance goals.

Target payouts were established under each The PIP provides broad discretion to the compensation committee in interpreting and administering the plan. All 2016 short-term cash incentive bonuses to our named executive officer’s employment agreement atofficers are expected to be paid out in early March 2017 and were dependent upon executives’ continued service through the time such agreementsend of fiscal 2016.

Target Bonus Percentages. Target short-term cash incentive bonuses for 2016 for each executive were entered intobased on a percentage of base salary and are currentlywere as follows for each named executive officer:

Name

 Percentage of
base salary

David H. Mowry

Robert J. Palmisano
 80100%

Shawn T McCormick

Lance A. Berry
 5065%

Gordon W. Van Ummersen

Kevin D. Cordell
 5055%/60% *

Stéphan Epinette

Peter S. Cooke
 4055%

Terry M. Rich

Robert P. Burrows
 7550%

_________________
*Mr. Cordell’s target bonus percentage increased to 60% in June 2016 in connection with his promotion to President, U.S.
The 20132016 target bonus percentages for our named executive officers did not change from their 2012second half of 2015 levels, except in the case of Mr. Mowry as a result ofBerry whose percentage increased to 65% and Mr. Cordell, whose percentage increased from 55% to 60% in connection with his promotion in February 2013 to President and Chief Executive Officer on a non-interim basis.June 2016. Based on an executive compensation analysis by Mercer in October 2013,our compensation consultant, we believe the target bonus percentages for our named executive officers were either at or below the 50th percentile for executivesare generally aligned with similar positions in our February 2013target market positioning within our peer group, except in the case of Mr. Mowry, whose target bonus percentage of 80% is slightly above the 25th percentile and below the 50th percentile, and Mr. Rich, whose target bonus percentage of 75% is above the 75th percentile. The compensation committee set Mr. Rich’s target bonus percentage at 75% to provide Mr. Rich a competitive compensation package to hire him from his then prior employer.

For 2013, payouts under our corporate performance incentive plangroup.


Performance Goal Mix. 2016 bonuses to our named executive officers were based upon achievement of corporate performance goals for all executives, as well as divisional performance goals for two executivesMessrs. Cordell and Cooke, and individual performance goals for all executives, except our President and Chief Executive Officer whose payout was to be based solely upon achievement ofMr. Burrows.
Named executive officer 
Percentage based upon
corporate
performance goals
 Percentage based upon
divisional
performance goals
 
Percentage based upon individual
performance goals
Robert J. Palmisano 100% 0% 0%
Lance A. Berry 100% 0% 0%
Kevin D. Cordell 40% 60% 0%
Peter S. Cooke 40% 60% 0%
Robert P. Burrows 80% 0% 20%
Corporate Performance Goals. For 2016, we had four corporate performance goals.

Named executive officer

  Percentage based upon
corporate performance goals
  Percentage based upon
divisional performance goals
  Percentage based upon
individual performance goals
 

David H. Mowry

   100  0  0

Shawn T McCormick

   90  0  10

Gordon W. Van Ummersen

   90  0  10

Stéphan Epinette

   20  70  10

Terry Rich

   20  70  10

For 2013, themeasures, three of which resulted in a payout and one of which did not. The three corporate performance metricsmeasures which resulted in a payout and their weightings for 2016 are set forth in the table below. These threeThe fourth corporate performance goalsgoal related to AUGMENT® Bone Graft, as to which there was no payout. These four measures were selected for 2013 because they were determined to be the threefour most important key indicators of our financial performance for 2013. Revenue was weighted more heavily since that was intended to be our greatest focus in 2013.

2016 as evaluated by management and analysts.

Corporate2016 corporate performance metric

 Weighting

Adjusted revenue

Global extremities and biologics net sales (1)
 6030%

Adjusted EBITDA

(2)
 2030%

Free cash flow (3)
30%
_________________
(1)This performance measure was calculated using a non-GAAP financial measure, which we believe provides meaningful supplemental information regarding our core operational performance. The global extremities and biologics net sales goal and actual results were calculated based on a foreign currency exchange planning rate to adjust for any impact of foreign currency on underlying performance.
(2)This performance measure was calculated using a non-GAAP financial measure, which we believe provides meaningful supplemental information regarding our core operational performance. Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations means net loss from continuing operations plus charges for interest, income taxes, depreciation and amortization expenses, non-cash share-based compensation expense and non-operating income and expense. Additionally, adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations excluded due diligence, transaction and transition costs associated with acquisitions and divestitures; amortization of inventory step-up; and bonus compensation.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, adjusted EBITDA included the results of operations for our Large Joints business through the third quarter of 2016.
(3)This performance measure was calculated using a non-GAAP financial measure, which we believe provides meaningful supplemental information regarding our core operational performance. Adjusted free cash flow

20 means net cash flow provided by operating activities, excluding net cash flow from certain discontinued operations, less capital expenditures.  In 2016, we excluded OrthoRecon for the entire year plus the amount of transition costs related to the divestiture of our Large Joints business to Corin, as well as the forecasted EBITDA from the Large Joints segment after the divestiture of that business.

The table below sets forthpercentage of the corporate performance goals for 2013, the range of possible payouts, and the actual payout percentage for our named executive officerstarget bonus earned by bonus objective was based on the actualfollowing performance achieved. levels:
Performance levelPercent of target bonus earned
Minimum0%
Threshold (50% payout)50.1% to 99.9%
Target (100% payout)100%
Above target (150% payout)100.1% to 150%
High (200% payout)150.1% to 200%
A participant would not be paid for a performance measure where achievement was below the threshold performance goal. If the target performance goal was exceeded, we would pay a bonus in excess of the target performance bonus. However, no participant would be paid an amount which exceeded twice the target performance bonus.
In each case,setting the goals were adjusted for certain items, including changesthreshold, target, above target, and maximum performance achievement levels, we considered past performance, market conditions, and the financial, strategic, and operational plans presented by management. When setting the target performance levels, we sought to foreign currency exchange ratesensure that at- or above-market performance was the goal. For above-target performance levels, the achievement levels required “stretch” performance by the management team to achieve this level of performance. At the threshold level, targets

would be set on a steeper slope than at the above target/maximum categories, so that missed target performance would result in more rapidly declining bonus opportunity, and items that are unusual and not reflective of normal operations. If performance achieved falls below the threshold level, there is no payoutbonus was paid for suchthat performance metric. Iflevel.
The performance achieved falls between the threshold, target and maximum levels, actual payout percentages are determined on a sliding scale basis, with payouts forlevel of each performance metric starting at 50% of target for threshold performance achievement and capped at 150% of target for maximum achievement. For 2013, the totalweighted-average payout percentage applicable to the portion of the 2013 annual cash incentive bonus tied to corporate performance goals was 30% of target sincemeasure for 2016 in which a payout resulted is set forth in the only performance goal met was the adjusted free cash flow goal above the target level, resulting in a 30% of target payout since the weighting for the adjusted free cash flow metric was 20%.

table below.
Performance level Performance goals(1)Global extremities and biologics net salesAdjusted EBITDAFree cash flow
Minimum$628.1 million$43.8 million$(81.0) million
Threshold (50% payout)$652.3 million$52.4 million$(72.1) million
Target (100% payout)$677.0 million$60.9 million$(63.6) million
Above target (150% payout)$697.9 million$70.3 million$(55.1) million
High (200% payout)$727.8 million$91.9 million$(46.2) million
The adjusted EBITDA performance goals were adjusted by the compensation committee in October 2016 to reflect the anticipated impact to fourth quarter 2016 adjusted EBITDA from the sale of our Large Joints business. Although our free cash flow goals for 2016 were also impacted by the sale of our Large Joints business, the compensation committee decided not to adjust the goals but rather to adjust the actual result to reflect the sale since the latter would be more precise.
The table below sets forth our actual performance for each corporate performance measure in which a payout resulted and the resulting payout for each and the overall weighted corporate performance achievement rating, which was 155.8% of target.
2016 corporate performance measures and weightingActualPayout
Global extremities and biologics net sales (30%)$685.1 million119.3%
Adjusted EBITDA (30%)$92.5 million200%
Free cash flow (30%)$(26.3) million200%
Overall weighted achievement rating   

Performance metric

Threshold
(50% payout)
Target
(100% payout)
Maximum
(150% payout)
2013
performance(2)
2013
payout

Adjusted revenue(3)

$ 318.0 mil.$ 328.2 mil.$ 334.1 mil.$ 308.8 mil.0

Adjusted EBITDA(4)

$36.7 mil.$39.7 mil.$42.7 mil.$31.1 mil.0

Adjusted free cash flow(5)

$(11.6) mil.$(10.1) mil.$(8.6) mil.$(8.7) mil.30155.8%

(1)The performance goals were established based on an assumed foreign currency exchange rate. For revenue, we assumed a foreign currency exchange rate of 1.2847, which represented the actual reported average rate of foreign exchange in 2012. For all other performance goals, we assumed a foreign currency exchange rate of 1.29 U.S. dollars for 1 Euro, which represented an anticipated average rate of foreign exchange for 2013 and which was the foreign currency exchange rate used by our company for 2013 budgeting purposes.

(2)The compensation committee determined 2013 payouts after reviewing our unaudited financial statements, which were adjusted for changes to foreign currency exchange rates and which were subject to additional discretionary adjustment by the compensation committee for items that are unusual and not reflective of normal operations. For purposes of determining 2013 payouts, in addition to foreign currency exchange rate adjustments, the compensation committee made additional adjustments discussed in the notes below. Accordingly, the figures included in the “2013 performance” column reflect foreign currency exchange rate and discretionary adjustments and differ from the figures reported in our 2013 audited financial statements.
(3)“Adjusted revenue” means our revenue for 2013, as adjusted for changes to foreign currency exchange rates.
(4)“Adjusted EBITDA” means our net loss for 2013, as adjusted for changes to foreign currency exchange rates, before interest income and expense, income tax expense and benefit, depreciation and amortization, as adjusted further to give effect to non-operating income and expense, foreign currency transaction gains and losses, loss on extinguishment of debt, share-based compensation, amortization of the inventory step-up from acquisitions and special charges including acquisition, integration and distribution channel transition costs, restructuring charges, reversal of acquisition contingent consideration liability, legal settlements and certain other items that affect the comparability and trend of Tornier’s operating results.
(5)“Adjusted free cash flow” means cash flow generated from operations less instrument investments and plant, property and equipment investments, as adjusted for changes to foreign currency exchange rates.

For 2013, payouts under our

The fourth corporate performance incentive plan for twogoal related to AUGMENT® Bone Graft, as to which there was no payout.
Divisional Performance Goals. As President of our named executive officers,a business unit, Mr. RichCordell’s 2016 PIP bonus was based 40% on corporate performance goals and Mr. Epinette, were based upon achievement of60% on divisional performance goals. SinceFor the first six months of 2016, Mr. Rich is in charge of our U.S. commercial operations, 70%Cordell was President, Lower Extremities and Biologics; and therefore, the divisional portion of his 2013 payout2016 PIP bonus was based upon adjustedon the performance of the U.S. revenue,lower extremities and sincebiologics business. In June 2016, Mr. Epinette is in charge of our international commercial operations, 70%Cordell was promoted to President, U.S. and given his new responsibilities, the compensation committee determined that it was appropriate that the divisional performance portion of his 2013 payout2016 PIP bonus for the remainder of 2016 be tied to the U.S. business and reflect the performance of that business for the full year 2016 as opposed to just the last six months. Accordingly, 55% of Mr. Cordell’s 2016 PIP bonus was based upon adjusted non-U.S. revenue.on the performance of the U.S. lower extremities and biologics business during the first six months of 2016, and the remainder was based on the performance of the entire U.S. business during all of 2016.
The portion of Mr. Cordell’s 2016 PIP bonus that was tied to the performance of the U.S. lower extremities and biologics business was based on net sales. With respect to this performance measure, the U.S. lower extremities and biologics business performed above target, resulting in a weighted achievement rating of 150.7% of target for that portion of Mr. Cordell’s 2016 PIP bonus. The portion of Mr. Cordell’s 2016 PIP bonus that was tied to the performance of the entire U.S. business was based on five divisional performance measures. The table below sets forth the four U.S. divisional performance measures in which a payout resulted and reflects how that business unit performed in 2016 and the overall weighted average divisional performance achievement rating. The fifth performance measure related to AUGMENT® Bone Graft, as to which there was no payout. Taking into account the two components, Mr. Cordell’s 2016 PIP bonus reflected an overall weighted average achievement rating of 152.7% of target.
2016 divisional performance measures and weighting2016 performance
U.S. net sales (32%)Between target and above target
Adjusted EBITDA for U.S. business (30%)Slightly below maximum
DOH for U.S. business (15%)Between above target and maximum
DSO for U.S. business (15%)Between target and above target
Overall weighted achievement ratingBetween target and above target
As President, International, Mr. Cooke’s 2016 annual PIP bonus was also based 40% on corporate performance goals and 60% on international divisional performance goals. The table below sets forth the divisional performance goalsmeasures for 2013, the range of possible payoutsinternational business and reflects how that business unit performed in 2016 and the actual payout percentage applicable tooverall weighted average divisional performance

achievement rating. Taking into account the portiontwo components, Mr. Cooke's 2016 PIP bonus reflected an overall weighted average achievement rating of the 2013 annual cash incentive bonus tied to divisional performance goals based on actual performance achieved.

137.3% of target.
International divisional performance measures and weightings Performance goals2016 performance
International extremities and biologics net sales (35%) Between threshold and target
Adjusted EBITDA for international extremities and biologics (35%) Above target
DOH for international extremities and biologics (15%) Between threshold and target

Performance metric

DSO for international (15%)
 Threshold
(50% payout)At maximum
Overall weighted achievement rating Target
(100% payout)
Maximum
(150% payout)
2013
performance
2013
payout

U.S. adjusted revenue

$190.9 mil.$197.1 mil.$200.6 mil.$182.1 mil.0

Non-U.S. adjusted revenue

$127.1 mil.$131.1 mil.$133.5 mil.$126.7 mil.0Between target and above target

As with

The specific performance levels for each divisional performance measure are maintained as proprietary and confidential. We believe that disclosure of these specific performance levels would represent competitive harm to us as these divisional goals and results are not publicly disclosed and are competitively sensitive. For each divisional performance measure, the corporatetarget goal reflects the annual financial business plan goal set for each respective division. Based on historical performance, goals, the compensation committee determined 2013 payouts after reviewing our U.S.believes the attainment of the target performance level, while uncertain, could be reasonably anticipated. Threshold goals represent the minimum level of performance necessary for there to be a payout for that performance measure and non-U.S. revenue in our unaudited financial statements for 2013, and which revenues were adjusted for changes to foreign currency exchange rates. In addition, non-U.S. revenue did not include revenue from Canada since Mr. Epinette was not in charge of those operations during 2013. Accordingly, the actual U.S. and non-U.S. adjusted revenue used to determine Mr. Rich’s and Mr. Epinette’s 2013 payouts differ from the figures reported in our 2013 audited financial statements. Although the payouts based on the divisional performance goals were zero for both Mr. Epinette and Mr. Rich, the board of directors, upon recommendation of our compensation committee approvedbelieves the threshold goals are likely to be achieved. Maximum goals represent levels of performance at which the compensation committee determines a discretionary bonuspayout of €31,944 to Mr. Epinette to reward him200% of target would be appropriate. The compensation committee believes that the maximum goals established for the strongeach division performance of our international business and his extraordinary individual performance and to retain and motivate him to achieve our corporate and international business’s performance objectives going forward.

measure are more aggressive goals.

Individual Performance Goals. To foster cooperation and communication among our executives, ourthe compensation committee places primary emphasis on overall corporate and divisional performance goals rather than on individual performance goals. For our named executive officers, at least 90%80% of their 20132016 annual cash incentive plan payoutsPIP bonuses were determined based on the achievement of corporate andor divisional performance goals and only 10%20% or less were based on achievement of individual performance goals. In addition, under the terms of the plan, no bonus payouts attributable to individual performance would occur if the threshold adjusted EBITDA corporate performance goal was not achieved. Since the threshold adjusted EBITDA corporate performance goal was not achieved, none of our named executive officers received any payout under the plan for individual performance.

The individual performance goals that were to be used to determine the payout under our corporate performance incentive plan areannual PIP bonuses were management by objectives, known internally as MBOs. MBOs are generally threetwo to fivethree written, specific and measurable objectives agreed to and approved by the executive, CEO and compensation committee in the beginning of the year. All MBOs were weighted, with areas of critical importance or critical focus weighted most heavily. Each of our named executive officers participated in a review process during the beginning of 2014 and in connection with such review was rated (on a scale from one to four with a rating of three representing target or “on plan” performance) depending upon whether, and at times, when, their MBOs for 2013 were achieved. Although these ratings are then used to determine the portion of the final bonus payout attributable to MBOs, none of the named executive officers received a payout under the plan for individual performance since the threshold adjusted EBITDA corporate performance goal was not achieved.

The MBOs for eachonly named executive officer who hadwith MBOs for 2013 are described in the table below. Most of thewas Mr. Burrows and his MBO achievement rating was 4.15. Mr. Burrows’s MBOs related primarily to the continued implementation of our high performance management system, or HPMS, which focuses executives’ efforts on oursupply chain vital programs, action itemsfew initiatives that would have a positive cash impact, Wright/Tornier merger integration activities related to supply chain, and objectives to work toward fulfilling our corporate mission, vision and values.

Name

2013 MBOs

Shawn T McCormick

•    Implementation of certain financial performance management software

•    Enterprise risk management readiness

•    Development of key performance indicators and monthly reporting dashboard

•    U.S. sales transition objectives

•    Expense maintenance within finance and information technology budget

•    Cash management objectives

Stéphan Epinette

•    Product sales in new countries

•    International revenues attributable to OrthoHelix products

•    Transition to direct operations in certain counties

•    Maintenance of certain international expenses

Terry M. Rich

•    Sales training of U.S. sales representatives and physicians

•    Expense maintenance within budgeted amounts

•    U.S. sales transition objectives

Our compensation committee determined that each of Messrs. McCormick, Epinette and Rich achieved 100% or higher of their respective MBOs. Mr. Van Ummersen did not have any formal MBOs for 2013 since he became an executivefuture cash flow opportunities in June 2013. Accordingly, the individual performance portion of his 2013 payout was determined by the compensation committee based upon, among other things, his self-assessment of his 2013 individual performance and the assessment by the CEO and compensation committee. The compensation committee determined that Mr. Van Ummersen achieved an individual performance payout at 100%supply chain.

2016 Actual PIP Bonuses. However, as mentioned above, our named executive officers received no bonus payouts for fiscal 2013 attributable to their individual performance since the threshold adjusted EBITDA corporate performance goal was not achieved.

The table below sets forth, with respect to eachfor the 2016 PIP bonuses for all named executive officer,officers, which bonuses are anticipated to be paid at the maximum potential bonus opportunity as a percentagebeginning of base salary and the actual bonus paid under the employee performance incentive compensation planMarch 2017:

Named executive officer 2016 PIP bonus
Robert J. Palmisano $1,435,928
Lance A. Berry 418,650
Kevin D. Cordell 376,693
Peter S. Cooke 289,893
Robert P. Burrows 404,875
PIP Performance Goals for 2013, both in amount and as a percentage of 2013 base earnings:

Name

  Maximum potential bonus
as percentage of base salary
 Actual
bonus paid
($)
   Actual bonus paid as a
percentage of

2013 base earnings
 

David H. Mowry

  120% (150% of 80%) $106,285     24

Shawn T McCormick

  75% (150% of 50%)  47,686     13

Gordon W. Van Ummersen

  75% (150% of 50%)  26,414     13

Stéphan Epinette(1)

  60% (150% of 40%)  7,220     2

Terry M. Rich

  113% (150% of 75%)  16,093     4

(1)A rate of one Euro to $1.368 was used to convert Mr. Epinette’s €5,278 bonus paid into U.S. dollars.

French Incentive Compensation Scheme.In addition to participating in our corporate performance incentive plan, Mr. Epinette participates in an incentive compensation scheme on the same basis as other employees of our French operating subsidiary. This scheme enables our French operating subsidiary to provide its employees with a form of compensation that is efficient with respect to income tax and mandated social contributions in France. The payments made under the French incentive compensation scheme, which receives preferential tax treatment, are exempted from social security contributions. Under the French incentive compensation scheme, employees of our French operating subsidiary may receive an annual incentive cash payment equal to a specified percentage of their base salary, up to certain statutory limits. In 2013, employees were eligible to receive up to 16% of base salary, up to a statutory limit of €18,516. For 2013, annual incentive payments were dependent on the achievement of performance goals relating to adjusted non-U.S. revenue, adjusted revenue, adjusted EBITDA, adjusted free cash flow, on-time delivery of new products to market and satisfactory service level reviews. In each case these amounts are adjusted for certain items similar to the adjustments that apply to the corporate performance goals established under our employee performance incentive compensation plan.

The table below sets forth the 2013 financial performance metrics for the French incentive compensation scheme, the range of possible payouts for Mr. Epinette, and the estimated actual payout percentage for Mr. Epinette based on the performance achieved. If performance achieved falls between the threshold and target/maximum levels, actual payout percentages are determined on a sliding scale basis, with payouts starting at 0.25% of base salary for minimum performance achievement and capped at 4% of base salary for target/maximum achievement for each individual metric. The actual payout percentages and Mr. Epinette’s actual 2013 incentive payment amount under the French incentive compensation scheme will be determined, on a final basis, and paid during mid-2014 after the French employee committee meets and approves the final payouts. It is anticipated that the actual payout percentages for Mr. Epinette’s actual 2013 payment amount will be as set forth in the table below, resulting in an anticipated payment of the maximum statutory limit of €18,516.

Performance metric

  Weighting  Performance goals(1)   Payout  2013
performance(3)
  Level for
2013
payment
 
           Threshold  Target/max.   
   Threshold   Target/max.(2)   (% of base
salary)
  (% of base
salary)
   

Adjusted non-U.S. revenue(4)

   25 $ 111.4 million    $ 131.1 million     0.25  4 $ 126.7 million    3.3

On-time delivery of new products to market(5)

   25  N/A     N/A     0.25  4  75  3.0

Satisfactory service level reviews(6)

   25  N/A     N/A     0.25  4  75  3.0

Adjusted revenue(7)

   15 $ 279.0 million    $ 328.2 million     0.15  2 $ 308.8 million    1.5

Adjusted EBITDA(8)

   5 $33.7 million    $39.7 million     0.05  1 $31.1 million    0.0

Adjusted free cash flow(9)

   5 $(11.9) million    $(10.1) million     0.05  1 $(8.7) million    1.0

(1)The performance goals were established based on an assumed foreign currency exchange rate of 1.29 U.S. dollars for 1 Euro, which represented an anticipated average rate of foreign exchange for 2013 and which was the rate of foreign exchange used by our company for 2013 budgeting purposes.
(2)Under the French incentive compensation scheme, the maximum possible payout is 16% of base salary, up to a statutory limit of €18,516, which is based on 100% achievement of target levels. Therefore, target and maximum performance and payout amounts are the same for the purposes of the French incentive compensation scheme.
(3)The compensation committee determined incentive payment amounts after reviewing our unaudited financial statements for the applicable year, which were adjusted for changes to the foreign currency exchange rates and which were subject to further discretionary adjustment by our compensation committee for items that are unusual and not reflective of normal operations. For purposes of determining 2013 bonus amounts, in addition to foreign currency exchange adjustments, the compensation committee made additional adjustments discussed in the notes below. Accordingly, the figures included in the “2013 performance” column reflect foreign currency exchange rate and discretionary adjustments and differ from the figures reported in our 2013 audited financial statements.
(4)“Adjusted non-U.S. revenue” means our U.S. revenue for 2013, as adjusted for changes to the foreign currency exchange rates.
(5)“On-time delivery to market of new products” means the timely release of certain new, strategic products by specific dates. The target/maximum payout amount with respect to this metric assumes the timely release of all new products scheduled to be delivered for a given year, whereas the threshold payout amount is determined by dividing 4% (the target/maximum payout for this metric) by the number of new products scheduled to be delivered for a given year.
(6)“Satisfactory service level reviews” means the timely processing and shipment of orders.
(7)“Adjusted revenue” means our revenue for 2013, as adjusted for changes to the foreign currency exchange rates.
(8)“Adjusted EBITDA” means our net loss for 2013, as adjusted for changes to foreign currency exchange rates, before interest income and expense, income tax expense and benefit, depreciation and amortization, as adjusted further to give effect to non-operating income and expense, foreign currency transaction gains and losses, loss on extinguishment of debt, share-based compensation, amortization of the inventory step-up from acquisitions and special charges including acquisition, integration and distribution channel transition costs, facilities consolidation charges, reversal of acquisition contingent consideration liability, bad debt expense charges in Italy, legal settlements, management exit costs and certain other items that affect the comparability and trend of Tornier’s operating results.
(9)“Adjusted free cash flow” means cash flow generated from operations less instrument investments, plant, property and equipment investments, and cash payments related to our facilities consolidation, as adjusted for changes to foreign currency exchange rates.

Corporate Performance Incentive Plan for 20142017. In February 2014, our board of directors, upon recommendation of our2017, the compensation committee approved the material terms of the Tornier N.V. Corporate Performance Incentive PlanPIP performance goals for 2014.2017. The 20142017 target bonus percentages for our named executive officers did not change from their 20132016 levels. Consistent

with the design for the 20132016 plan, the payout under our 2014 corporate performance incentive planannual bonus for our President and Chief Executive OfficerCEO will be based 100% uponon achievement of corporate performance goals, with no divisional performance or individual performance components. Otherwise, the percentage payout splits among corporate performance goals, divisional performance goals and individual performance goals will be the sameBonuses for our other named executive officers for 2014, except that payouts for Mr. Rich and Mr. Epinette will be based 100% on achievement of corporate performance goals for Mr. Berry, 40% uponon achievement of corporate performance goals and 60% uponon achievement of their respective divisional goals.performance goals for Messrs. Cordell and Cooke, and 80% on achievement of corporate performance goals and 20% on achievement of individual goals for Mr. Burrows. Mr. Cordell’s divisional performance goals will be split equally between the U.S. lower extremities and biologics business and the U.S. upper extremities business and Mr. Cooke’s divisional performance goals will be based on the international business. The corporate performance measures under the plan for 20142017 will be based on Tornier’s adjusted revenue (both total revenue and total extremities revenue),net sales, adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations, and adjusted free cash flow. The divisional performance measuresgoals for 2014Messrs. Cordell and Cooke will be based on U.S. adjusted revenuesimilar to the goals for 2016. The individual goals for Mr. Rich and non-U.S. adjusted revenue (both total non-U.S. revenue and non-U.S. extremities revenue) for Mr. Epinette. If the minimum or threshold free cash flow corporateBurrows will relate to our high performance goal is not achieved, then our named executive officers will not receive any payout under the plan for individual performance. The material terms of the plan for 2014 are otherwise the same as the plan for 2013.

management system supply chain initiatives.

Long-Term Equity-Based Incentive Compensation

Generally. OurThe compensation committee’s primary objectives with respect to long-term equity-based incentives are to align the interests of our executives with the long-term interests of our shareholders, promote stock ownership, and create significant

incentives for executive retention. Long-term equity-based incentives typically comprise a significant portion of each named executive officer’s compensation package, consistent with our executive compensation philosophy that at least half of the CEO’s compensation and one-third of other executives’ compensation opportunity should be in the form of stock-based incentive awards. For 2013, equity-based compensation comprised 63% of total compensation for our CEO during the year and ranged from 44% to 76% of total compensation for our other named executive officers, assuming grant date fair value for equity awards. One of our named executive officers had a higher percentage of equity-based compensation than our CEO since such named executive officer joined our company in 2013 and thus received a higher talent acquisition grant during 2013.

Before our initial public offering in February 2011, we granted stock options under our prior stock option plan, which is now the Tornier N.V. Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan and referred to in this report as our prior stock option plan. Since our initial public offering, we ceased making grants under our prior stock option plan and subsequently have granted stock options and other equity-based awards under the Tornier N.V. 2010 Incentive Plan, which is referred to in this report as our stock incentive plan. Both our board of directors and shareholders have approved our stock incentive plan, under which our named executive officers (as well as other executives and key employees) are eligible to receive equity-based incentive awards. For more information on the terms of our stock incentive plan, see “Executive Compensation—Grants of Plan-Based Awards— Tornier N.V. 2010 Incentive Plan.” All equity-based incentive awards granted to our named executive officers during 2013 were made under our stock incentive plan.

To assist our board of directors in granting, and our compensation committee and management in recommending the grant of, equity-based incentive awards, our compensation committee, on recommendation of Mercer, in April 2013, adopted long-term incentive grant guidelines. In addition to our long-term incentive grant guidelines, our board of directors has adopted a stock grant policy document, which includes policies that our board of directors and compensation committee follow in connection with granting equity-based incentive awards, including the long-term incentive grant guidelines.

philosophy.

Types of Equity Grants. Under our long-term incentive grant guidelines, and our policy document, our board of directors, on recommendation of the compensation committee, generally grants threetwo types of equity-based incentive awards to our named executive officers: performance recognition grants and talent acquisition grants and special recognition grants. On limited occasion, our board of directors, on recommendation of the compensation committee,we may grant purely discretionary awards. During 2013, only performancemake special recognition grants and talent acquisitionor discretionary grants to executive officers for retention or other purposes. Such grants may vest based on the passage of time and/or the achievement of certain performance goals. During 2016, only annual performance recognition grants were made to one or more of our named executive officers.

officers, as described in more detail under “-2016 Equity Awards.”

Performance recognition grants are discretionary annual grants that are made during mid-year to give the compensation committee another formal opportunity during the year to review executive compensation and recognize executive and other key employee performance. In July 2013, the performance recognition grants were approved by the board of directors, on recommendation of the compensation committee, but the grant date of the awards was effective as of the third full trading day after the release of our second quarter earnings in August 2013. The recipients and size of the annual performance recognition grants wereare determined on a preliminary basis, by each executive with input from their management team and based on our long-term incentive grant guidelines, and the 10-trading day average closing sale price ofwhich we review annually to ensure continued alignment with our ordinary shares as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market. Grants were determined one week before the corporate approval of the awards, and then ultimately approved by our board of directors, on recommendation by the compensation committee.target positioning. Under our long-term incentive grant guidelines for annual performance recognition grants, our named executive officers received a certain percentage of their respective base salaries in stock options and stockRSU awards. Consistent with the principle that the interests of our executives should be aligned with those of our shareholders and that the portion of an executive’s total compensation that varies with performance and is at risk should increase with the executive’s level of responsibility, incentive grants, expressed as a percentage of base salary and dollar values, increase as an executive’s level of responsibility increases.
The table below describes our long-term incentive grant awards (in the form of restricted stock units and referredguidelines for annual performance recognition grants that applied to as stock awards or RSUs in this CD&A and elsewhere in this report), as set forth in more detail in the table below.

our named executive officers for 2016.

Named executive officer 
Incentive grant guideline
expressed as % of base salary
 
Dollar value of
incentive grant guideline ($)
Robert J. Palmisano 400% $3,686,592
Lance A. Berry 200% 826,800
Kevin D. Cordell 175% 795,795
Peter S. Cooke 100% 384,000
Robert P. Burrows 100% 518,605
Once the target total long-term equity value was determined for each executive based on the executive’s relevant percentage of base salary, half of the value was provided in stock options and the other half was provided in stockRSU awards. The reasons why we use stock options and stockRSU awards are described below under the headings “—“-Stock Options”Options and “—Stock Awards.“-RSU Awards. The target dollar value to be delivered in stock options (50% of the target total long-term equity value) was divided by the Black-Scholes value of one ordinary share to determine the number of stock options, which then was rounded to the nearest whole number or in some cases multiple of 100. The number of stock awards was calculated using the intended dollar value (50% of the target total long-term equity value) divided by the 10-trading day average closing sale price of our ordinary shares as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market and was determined one week before the date of anticipated corporate approval of the award, which number was then rounded to the nearest whole number or in some cases multiple of 100. Typically, the number of ordinary shares subject to stock awards is fewer than the number of ordinary shares that would have been covered by a stock option of equivalent target value. The actual number of stock options and stock awards granted may then be pared back so that the estimated run rate dilution under our stock incentive plan is acceptable to our compensation committee (i.e., approximately 2.7% for 2013). The CEO next reviewed the preliminary individual awards and may make recommended discretionary adjustments. Such proposed individual awards were then presented to the compensation committee, which also may make discretionary adjustments before recommending awards to our board of directors for approval. After board approval, awards were issued, with the exercise price of the stock options equal to the closing price of our ordinary shares on the grant date. In determining the number of stock options or stock awards to make to an executive as part of a performance recognition grant, previous awards, whether vested or unvested, granted to such individual had no impact.

The table below describes our long-term incentive grant guidelines for annual performance recognition grants that applied to our named executive officers for 2013. Mr. Van Ummersen is not listed in the table because he did not receive an annual performance recognition grant for 2013.

Named executive officer

  Grade level  Incentive grant guideline
expressed as % of base salary for
grade level
  Incentive grant guideline
dollar value of
long-term incentives ($)
 

David H. Mowry

  11   225 $1,012,500  

Shawn T McCormick

  9   125  443,515  

Stéphan Epinette(1)

  8   125  389,501  

Terry M. Rich

  8   125  449,530  

(1)A rate of one Euro to $1.33 was used to convert Mr. Epinette’s base salary into U.S. dollars for purposes of determining his long-term incentive grant guideline.

We seek to align the interests of our executives with those of our shareholders by providing a significant portion of compensation in equity-based awards. Consistent with this principle, the portion of an executive’s total compensation that varies with performance and is at risk should increase with the executive’s level of responsibility. Thus, incentive grants, expressed as a percentage of base salary and dollar values, increase as an executive’s level of responsibility increases. The incentive grant guidelines were benchmarked by Mercer against our February 2013 peer group.

Performance recognition grants also may be made in connection with the promotion of an individual. When a performance recognition grant is made in connection with the promotion of an individual, the amount of the grant is usually made based on the pro rata difference between the long-term incentive grant guideline for the new position compared to the long-term incentive grant guideline for the prior position.

Talent acquisition grants are made in stock options and stock awards, and are used for new hires. These grants of options and RSU awards are considered and approved by our board of directors, upon recommendation of our compensation committee, as part of the executive’s compensation package at the time of hire (with the grant date and exercise price delayed until the hire date or the first open window period after board approval of the grant)date). As with our performance recognition grants, the size of our talent acquisition grants is determined by dollar amount (as opposed to number of underlying shares), and under our long-term incentive grant guidelines, is generally two times the long-term incentive grant guidelines for annual performance recognition grants. We have set talent acquisition grants, at two times the long-term incentive grant guidelines for annual performance recognition grants, upon recommendationas recommended by Mercer.our compensation consultant. We recognize that higher initial grants often are necessary to attract a new executive, especially one who may have accumulated a substantial amount of equity-based long-term incentive awards at a previous employer that would typically be forfeited upon acceptance of employment with us. In some cases, we may need to further increase a talent acquisition grant to attract an executive.

Our compensation committee No talent acquisitions grants were made a promotional performance recognition grant, annual performance recognition grants and a talent acquisition grant to one or moreany of our named executive officers during 2013, as described in more detail below under “—2013 Equity Awards.”

In addition to our annual and promotional performance recognition grants and talent acquisition grants, from time to time, we may make special recognition grants or discretionary grants to our executive officers for retention or other purposes. Such grants may vest based on the passage of time and/or the achievement of certain performance goals, such as those based on our revenue, expenses, profitability, productivity, cash flows, asset utilization, shareholder return, share price and other similar performance measures. For example, as described in more detail below under “—2014 Retention Equity Awards,” effective as of February 25, 2014, stock awards in the form of restricted stock units will be granted to certain of our executive officers, the vesting of which is based on the passage of time or, if earlier, the achievement of certain minimum share price triggers.

2016.

Stock Options. Historically, we have granted stock options to our named executive officers, as well as other key employees. We believe that options effectively incentivize employees to maximize company performance, as the value of awards is directly tied to an appreciation in the value of our ordinary shares. They also provide an effective retention mechanism because of vesting provisions. An important objective of our long-term incentive program is to strengthen the relationship between the long-term value of our ordinary shares and the potential financial gain for employees. Stock options provide recipients with the opportunity to purchase our ordinary shares at a price fixed on the grant date regardless of future market price. The vesting of our stock options is generally time-based. Consistenttime-based, with our historical practice, 25% of the shares underlying the stock option typically vestvesting on the one-year anniversary of the grant date (or if later, on the hire date) and the remaining 75% of the underlying shares vestvesting over a three-year period thereafter in 1236 nearly equal quarterlymonthly installments. Our policy is to grant options only with an exercise price equal to or more than the fair market value of ouran ordinary sharesshare on the grant date.

Because stock options become valuable only if the share price increases above the exercise price and the option holder remains employed during the period required for the option to vest, they provide an incentive for an executive to remain employed. In addition, stock options link a portion of an employee’s compensation to the interests of our shareholders by providing an incentive to achieve corporate goals and increase the market price of our ordinary shares over the four-year vesting period.

To comply with Dutch insider trading laws, we time our option grants to occur on the third trading day after the public release of our financial results for our most recently ended quarter.

Stock


RSU Awards. StockRSU awards are intended to retain key employees, including our named executive officers, through vesting periods. StockRSU awards provide the opportunity for capital accumulation and more predictable long-term incentive value than stock options. All of our stockRSU awards are stock grants in the form of restricted stock units, which is a commitment by us to issue ordinary shares at the time the stockRSU award vests.

The specific terms of vesting of a stockan RSU award dependdepends on whether the award is a performance recognition grant or talent acquisition grant. Performance recognition grants of stockRSU awards are made mid-year and vest in four annual installments on June 1st1st of each year. Talent acquisition grants of stockRSU awards to new hires vest in a similar manner, except that the first installment is often pro-rated, depending on the grant date.

2013

2016 Equity Awards. Our boardThe table below sets forth the number of directors, on recommendation of the compensation committee, made a promotional performance recognition grant, a talent acquisition grantstock options and annual performance recognition grantsRSU awards granted to one or moreeach of our named executive officers during 2013.

In connection with the promotion of Mr. Mowry to President and Chief Executive Officer on a non-interim basis, he received a promotional performance recognition grant in February 2013. The number of stock options and stock awards granted to Mr. Mowry as part of the promotional performance recognition grant was determined based on the pro rata difference between the long-term incentive grant guideline for Mr. Mowry, as President and Chief Executive Officer and his then most recent long-term incentive grant as Chief Operating Officer, which was Mr. Mowry’s position prior to becoming President and Chief Executive Officer. Accordingly, on February 26, 2013, Mr. Mowry was granted a stock option to purchase 17,466 ordinary shares and a stock award in the form of a restricted stock unit for 7,982 ordinary shares.

Since Mr. Van Ummersen joined Tornier as a new executive in 2013, he received a talent acquisition grant in 2013. The number of stock options and stock awards granted to Mr. Van Ummersen as part of the talent acquisition grant was determined based on two times his long-term incentive grant guideline of $437,500, which represents 125% of his base salary. Accordingly, on August 9, 2013, Mr. Van Ummersen was granted a stock option to purchase 52,765 ordinary shares and a stock award in the form of a restricted stock unit for 24,430 ordinary shares.

The table below describes the annual performance recognition grants made to our named executive officers in 2013 and the applicable long-term incentive grant guideline for such performance recognition grants for these executives. Since Mr. Van Ummersen received a talent acquisition grant at the time of the performance recognition grants, he did not receive a performance recognition grant for 2013 and thus is not listed in the table below.

Named executive officer

  Stock
options
   Stock
awards
   Value of long-term incentive
grant guideline(1)

($)
 

David H. Mowry

   61,057     28,269    $1,012,500  

Shawn T McCormick

   26,745     12,383     443,515  

Stéphan Epinette(2)

   23,192     10,738     389,501  

Terry M. Rich

   27,108     12,551     449,530  

(1)The value per long-term incentive grant guideline of the annual performance recognition grants is based on the value calculated under our long-term incentive grant guidelines and does not necessarily match the grant date fair value of the equity awards under applicable accounting rules and as set forth in the Grants of Plan Based Awards Table later in this report.
(2)A rate of one Euro to $1.33 was used to convert Mr. Epinette’s base salary into U.S. dollars for purposes of determining his long-term incentive grant guideline.

2016.

Named executive officer 
Stock
options
 
RSU
awards
Robert J. Palmisano 271,076
 94,334
Lance A. Berry 60,795
 21,157
Kevin D. Cordell 58,515
 20,363
Peter S. Cooke 29,083
 10,121
Robert P. Burrows 38,133
 13,270
Additional information concerning the long-term incentive compensation information for our named executive officers for 20132016 is included in the Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table later in this report.

2014 Retentionunder the heading “Executive Compensation Tables and Narratives.”

2017 Equity Awards. Effective as of February 25, 2014, stock grants, inWe intend to change the form of restricted stock units, will be granted to certain of our officers, including three of our named executive officers. The purpose of the grants is to retain and motivate our officers in light of: (1) the continuitymix of our executive team is important for executing our current strategic plan; (2) such officers received minimal corporate bonus payouts for 2013 under our corporate performancelong-term incentive awards to incorporate performance-based awards in 2017. We plan and received little to no corporate bonus payouts for 2012; (3) such officers received no bonus payouts for 2013 attributablemove to their individual performance since under the termsa mix comprised of our corporate performance incentive plan, if the threshold adjusted EBITDA corporate performance goal was not achieved, then executive officer participants did not receive any payout under the plan for individual performance; (4) the vast majority of previously grantedone-third performance-based awards, one-third time-based stock options held by such officers are currently “underwater” and thus offer minimal retention value; and (5)one-third time-based RSUs. We anticipate that the outstanding long-term equity incentive value for our executive officers is below the median for all positions compared to our February 2013 peer group and below the 25th percentile for three of seven positions.

The retention restricted stock unitsperformance-based awards will vest based on the passage of time, with 50% of the underlying shares vesting and becoming issuable on the two-year anniversary of the grant date, 25% on the three-year anniversary of the grant date and the remaining 25% on the four-year anniversary of the grant date, or, if earlier,only upon the achievement of certain minimum share price triggers. The share price triggers willperformance goals to be measured based onachieved over a 30-day average closing price of our ordinary shares.

The following named executive officers will receive the following number of retention restricted stock units: Mr. McCormick (12,500); Mr. Van Ummersen (12,500); and Mr. Rich (12,500). Neither Mr. Mowry nor Mr. Epinette will receive any retention restricted stock unit grants. The number of retention restricted stock units granted to each named executive officer was determined based on a comparison of the value of their current long-term equity incentives and their respective long term incentive grant guideline.

three-year performance period.

All Other Compensation

Retirement Benefits.In 2013, each of2016, our named executive officers had the opportunity to participate in retirement plans maintained by our operating subsidiaries, including our U.S. operating subsidiary’sa 401(k) plan, and, with respect to Mr. Epinette, our French operating subsidiary’sgovernment-mandated pension plan and agovernment-mandated pension plan for managerial staff, or the Retraite Complémentaire, on the same basis as our other employees. We believe that these plans provide an enhanced opportunity for our executives to plan for and meet their retirement savings needs. Mr. Epinette also participated in our French operating subsidiary’s defined contribution pension plan for key employees, or the Retraite Supplémentaire, on the same basis as other key employees. The Retraite Supplémentaire is intended to supplement the state pension plans mandated by French labor laws and to provide participants with a form of compensation that is efficient with respect to income tax and mandated social contributions. Except for these plans, we do not provide pension arrangements or post-retirement health coverage for our employees, including our named executive officers. We also do not provide any nonqualified defined contribution or other deferred compensation plans.

Relocation, Benefits. Assignment and Expat Benefits. We provide new hiresour executive officers with customary relocation assistance benefits if they relocate at our request. For international assignments, we also provide customary assignment and employees whoexpat benefits that are consistent with local policies and practices. Tax protection may be provided in these situations to avoid an executive being penalized from a tax perspective for a relocation or expat service on behalf of our company. During 2016, we requestasked Mr. Cooke, President, International, to relocate with standard, market competitive reimbursements of and payments for certain relocation benefits. In June 2013, Mr. Van Ummersen, who lived in Massachusetts, commenced employment as our then new Senior Vice President, Product Delivery. To ease his employment transitionfamily to the Minneapolis/St. Paul area,United Kingdom and build an international headquarters and team. To compensate and incentivize Mr. Cooke to relocate, we agreed to provide Mr. Van Ummersen a monthlyhim standard and customary relocation, temporary living stipendassignment and expat benefits. These are described in more detail under “Executive Compensation Tables and Narratives-Summary Compensation Information-All Other Compensation for 2016-Supplemental” and include cost-of-living adjustments, medical coverage, housing allowance, educational tuition fees and related transportation costs, car lease, reimbursement of $2,500 for 12 months. During 2013, we also continued to provide Mr. Mowry a monthly housing stipend of $3,000 through mid-year. The amounts of Mr. Van Ummersen’s monthly temporary living stipendcertain relocation expenses and Mr. Mowry’s monthly housing stipend were determined based on average monthly rentals for an apartment in downtown Minneapolis. All of these amounts are included in the “All other compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Tabletax and amounts paid during 2013 are quantified in the related note to that column.

Contingent Sign-On Bonus. Under Mr. Van Ummersen’s employment agreement, we agreed to pay him an $80,000 sign-on bonus, contingent on his employment for at least one year. We believe this payment assisted in our ability to hire Mr. Van Ummersen.

Discretionary Bonuses. On February 13, 2014, our board of directors, upon recommendation of our compensation committee, approved a discretionary bonus of €31,944 to Mr. Epinette, and on April 30, 2013, our board of directors, upon recommendation of our compensation committee, approved a discretionary bonus of €21,000 to Mr. Epinette. The purpose of these bonuses was to reward Mr. Epinette for the strong performance of our international business and his extraordinary individual performance and to retain and motivate him to achieve our corporate and international business’s performance objectives going forward.

tax equalization benefits.

Perquisites and Other Benefits.Our namedBenefits. We provide our executive officers receive other benefits, which also are received by our other employees, including the opportunitywith modest perquisites to purchase our ordinary shares at a discount with payroll deductions under our tax-qualified employee stock purchase plan,attract and health, dental and life insurance benefits. We provide limited additional modestretain them. The perquisites provided to our named executive officers only onduring 2016 included $1,000 for certain personal insurance premiums and up to $5,000 reimbursement for financial and tax planning and tax preparation. In addition, we are required to provide our CEO additional perquisites under the terms of his employment agreement, which we agreed upon at the time of his initial hiring by legacy Wright to attract him to our company. These additional perquisites include additional reimbursement for financial and tax planning and tax preparation, a case-by-case basis. For 2013, these perquisites included themonthly allowance of $7,500 for housing stipendand automobile expenses, reimbursement for Mowry, the temporary living stipend for Mr. Van Ummersenreasonable travel expenses between Memphis, Tennessee and his residences, and an annual physical examination. To the extent that the reimbursements for his housing and automobile allowanceexpenses and travel expenses between Memphis, Tennessee and his residences are not deductible by Mr. Palmisano for Mr. Epinette.income tax purposes, such amounts are “grossed-up” for income tax purposes so that the reimbursed items will be received net of any deduction for income and payroll taxes. We provide Mr. Epinette with an automobile allowance onagreed to this gross-up provision at the same basis as other key employeestime of our French operating subsidiary pursuanthis initial hiring by legacy Wright to attract him to our company policy, which weand ease the financial burden on him to travel between Memphis, Tennessee and his residences. We believe is necessary in lightthese perquisites are an important part of our overall compensation package and help us accomplish our goal of attracting, retaining, and rewarding top executive talent. The value of all of the competitive marketperquisites provided to our named

executive officers for talent in our industry.

2016 can be found under “Executive Compensation Tables and Narratives- Summary Compensation Information-All Other Compensation for 2016-Supplemental.”

Change in Control and Post-Termination Severance Arrangements

Change in Control Arrangements. To encourage continuity, stability and retention when considering the potential disruptive impact of an actual or potential corporate transaction, we have established change in control arrangements, including provisions in our prior stock option plan, current stock incentive plan and written employmentequity-based compensation plans, separation pay agreements with our executives, and other key employees.our employment agreement with our CEO, which are described in more detail below and under “Executive Compensation Tables and Narratives-Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change in Control.” These arrangements are designed to incentivize our executives to remain with theour company in the event of a change in control or potential change in control.
Under the terms of our current stock incentive plan and the individual award documents provided to recipients of awards under that plan, all stock options and stockRSU awards will become immediately vested (and, in the case of options, exercisable) upon the completion of a change in control of theour company. For more information, see “Executive Compensation—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control—Change in Control Arrangements—Generally.” Thus, the immediate vesting of stock options and stockRSU awards is triggered by the change in control, itself, and thus is known as a “single trigger” change in control arrangement. We believe our current “single trigger” equity acceleration change in control arrangements provide important retention incentives during what can often be an uncertain time for employees. They also provide executives with additional monetary motivation to focus on and complete a transaction that our board of directors believes is in the best interests of our company and shareholders rather than seekingto seek new employment opportunities. We also believe that the immediate acceleration of equity-based awards aligns the interests of our executives and other employees with those of our shareholders by allowing our executives to participate fully in the benefits of a change in control as to all of their equity. If an executive were to leave before the completion of the change in control, non-vestedunvested awards held by the executive would terminate.

However, despite our belief that single trigger change in control arrangements play an important role in our executive compensation program, we recognize that our single trigger change in control arrangements no longer align with current market practice and the desires of many of our shareholders. Accordingly, in connection with our new equity and incentive plan that we intend to submit to a vote of our shareholders at our 2017 annual general meeting, we intend to implement a new “double trigger” change in control provision with respect to future equity awards. Under this new provision, equity awards granted under the new plan will not vest in connection with a change in control unless there is a termination event or the equity awards are not continued, assumed or substituted with like awards by the successor.
In addition to our change in control provisions in our stock incentive plan, we have entered into an employment agreement with our CEO and separation pay agreements with our other named executive officers and other officers towhich provide certain payments and benefits in the event of a change in control, mosttermination of which are payable only in the event their employment is terminated in connection with thea change in control (“double-trigger” provisions).control. These “double trigger” change in control protections were initially offeredare intended to induce the executives to accept or continue employment with our company, provide consideration to an executiveexecutives for certain restrictive covenants that apply following a termination of employment, and provide continuity of management in connection with a threatened or actual change in control transaction. If thean executive’s employment is terminated without cause or by the executive for “good reason” (as defined in the employment agreements) within 12 months (24 months for our CEO) following a change in control, the executive will be entitled to receive a lump sumseverance payment equal to his or her base salary plus target bonus for the year of termination, health and welfare benefit continuation for 12 months following termination and accelerated vesting of all unvested options and stock awards.certain benefits. These arrangements and a quantification of the payment and benefits provided under these arrangements are described in more detail under “Executive Compensation—Executive Compensation Tables and Narratives-Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change in Control—Change in Control Arrangements..Other than the immediate acceleration of equity-based awards which we believe aligns our executives’ interests with those of our shareholders by

allowing executives to participate fully in the benefits of a change in control as to all of their equity, in order for our named executive officers to receive any other payments or benefits as a result of a change in control of our company, there must be a termination of the executive’s employment, either by us without cause or by the executive for good reason. The termination of the executive’s employment by the executive without good reason will not give rise to additional payments or benefits either in a change in control situation or otherwise. Thus, theseThese additional payments and benefits will not just be triggered just by a change in control, but also will require a termination event not within the control of the executive, and thus are known as “double trigger” change in control arrangements. As opposed to the immediate acceleration of equity-based awards, we believe that other change in control payments and benefits should properly be tied to termination following a change in control, given the intent that these amounts provide economic security to ease in the executive’s transition to new employment.

We believe our change in control arrangements are an important part of our executive compensation program in part because they mitigate some of the risk for executives working in a smaller company where there is a meaningful likelihood that the company may be acquired. Change in control benefits are intended to attract and retain qualified executives who, absent these arrangements and in anticipation of a possible change in control of our company, might viewconsider seeking employment alternatives to be less risky than remaining with our company through the transaction. We believe that relative to theour company’s overall value, our potential change in control benefits are relatively small. We confirm this belief on an annual basis by reviewing a tally sheet for each executive that summarizes the change in controlsmall and severance benefits potentially payable to each executive. We also believe that the form and amount of such benefits are reasonable in light of those provided to executives by companies in ouraligned with current peer group and other companies with which we compete for executive talent and the amount of time typically required to find executive employment opportunities. We, thus, believe we must continue to offer such protections in order to remain competitive in attracting and retaining executive talent.

company practices.

Other Severance Arrangements. Each of our named executive officers is entitled to receive severance benefits upon certain other qualifying terminations of employment, other than a change in control, pursuant to the provisions of such executive’san employment agreement.agreement for our CEO and separation pay agreements for our other named executive officers. These severance arrangements were initially offeredare intended to induce the executives to accept or continue employment with our company and are primarily intended to retain our executives and provide consideration to an executivethose executives for certain restrictive covenants that apply following a termination of employment. Additionally, we entered into the employmentthese agreements because they provide us valuable protection by subjecting the executives to restrictive covenants that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information during and following their employment and limit their ability to engage in competition with us or otherwise interfere with our business relationships following their termination of employment.

In the beginning of 2016, as part of our merger integration efforts, we asked Mr. Cooke, our President, International to relocate his family to the United Kingdom and build an international headquarters and team. Despite his initial hesitation to do so, Mr. Cooke agreed. To incentivize him to relocate, we entered into a retention letter agreement with him under which we agreed to provide him certain expat relocation and temporary assignment benefits customarily provided to executives in such situations. We also agreed to pay him a $1.2 million retention payment on the second anniversary of his relocation, subject to his continuing employment through such date and other specified terms and conditions. This retention payment, if made, would be in lieu of any future change in control or severance payment Mr. Cooke otherwise would be entitled to receive under his separation pay agreement. If Mr. Cooke voluntarily terminates his employment prior to the completion of his two-year assignment, he will not receive the retention payment. If we terminate his employment without cause or he terminates his employment for good reason prior to the completion of his two-year assignment, he will receive the retention payment.
For more information on our employment agreements and severance arrangements with our named executive officers, see the discussions below under the headings “Executive Compensation—Summary Compensation—Employment Agreements”“-Executive Compensation Tables and “PotentialNarratives-Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change in Control.Control.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

In February 2014, we

We have established stock ownership guidelines that are intended to further align the interests of our executive officersexecutives with those of our shareholders. Stock ownership targets for each of our executive officers arehave been set at that number of our ordinary shares with a value equal to a multiple of the executive’s annual base salary, withsalary. Each of the multiple equal to three times for our CEO and one and one-half times for our other executive officers. Executive officers havehas five years from the date of hire or, if the ownership multiple has increased during his or her tenure, five years from the date established in connection with such increase to reach theirhis or her stock ownership target.targets. Until the applicablehis or her stock ownership target is achieved, each executive subject to the guidelines is required to retain an amount equal to 75% of the net shares received as a result of the exercise of stock options or the vesting of restricted stock units.RSU awards. If there is a significant decline in the price of our stock priceordinary shares that causes executives to be out of compliance, such executives will be subject to the 75% retention ratio, but will not be required to purchase additional shares to meet the applicable target.

targets. Our compensation committee will reportreports on compliance with the guidelines at least annually to our board of directors. Stock ownership targets are evaluated and adjusted as necessary on January 1st each year and also whenever an executive’s annual base salary changes. As of February 13, 2014, the date the stock ownership guidelines were established, all of our executives met their respective individual stock ownership guideline, except for Mr. Mowry, whose stock ownership target is the highest amongst our executive team in light of his CEO position.

Named executive officer
Stock ownership target as a multiple of
base salary
In
compliance (yes/no)
Robert J. Palmisano4xYes
Lance A. Berry2xYes
Kevin D. Cordell2xYes
Peter S. Cooke2xYes
Robert P. Burrows2xYes
Anti-Hedging and Pledging

Our code of conduct on insider trading and confidentiality prohibits our executive officers from engaging in hedging transactions, such as short sales, transactions in publicly traded options, such as puts, calls and other derivatives, and pledging our ordinary shares.
Clawback Policy
During 2017, we intend to adopt a clawback policy that will authorize recovery of gains from incentive compensation, including equity awards, in the event of certain financial restatements. In addition, our stock incentive plan and PIP currently contain “clawback” provisions. Under our stock incentive plan, if an executive is determined by the compensation committee to have taken action that would constitute “cause” or an “adverse action,” as those terms are defined in the plan, during or within one year after the termination of the executive’s employment, all rights of the executive under the plan and any agreements evidencing an award then held by the executive will terminate and be forfeited. In addition, the compensation committee may require the executive to surrender and return to us any shares received, and/or to disgorge any profits or any other economic value made or realized by the executive in connection with any awards or any shares issued upon the exercise or vesting of any awards during or within one year after the termination of the executive’s employment or other service. Under our PIP, we have the right to take all actions necessary, to recover any awards or amounts paid to any plan participant to the extent required or permitted by applicable laws, rules or regulations, securities exchange listing requirements or any policy of our company implementing the foregoing.
Risk Assessment
As a result of our annual assessment on risk in our compensation programs, we concluded that our compensation policies, practices, and programs and related compensation governance structure, work together in a manner so as to encourage our executives to pursue growth strategies that emphasize shareholder value creation, but not to take unnecessary or excessive risks that could threaten the value of our company. For more information on this assessment, see the discussions below under “-Executive Compensation Tables and Narratives-Risk Assessment of Compensation Policies, Practices and Programs.”

Executive Compensation Decision Making
Role of Compensation Committee and Board. The responsibilities of the compensation committee include reviewing and approving corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of our executive officers, evaluating each executive’s performance in light of those goals and objectives and, either as a committee or together with the other directors, determining and approving each executive’s compensation, including performance-based compensation based on these evaluations (and, in the case of executives, other than the CEO, the CEO’s evaluation of such executive’s individual performance). Consistent with our shareholder-approved board of directors compensation policy, the compensation package for our CEO, who also serves as executive director of our company, is determined by our non-executive directors, based upon recommendations from the compensation committee.
In setting or recommending executive compensation for our named executive officers, the compensation committee considers the following primary factors:
each executive’s position within the company and the level of responsibility;
the ability of the executive to impact key business initiatives;
the executive’s individual experience and qualifications;
compensation paid to executives of comparable positions by companies similar to us;
company performance, as compared to specific pre-established objectives;
individual performance, generally and as compared to specific pre-established objectives;
the executive’s current and historical compensation levels;
advancement potential and succession planning considerations;
an assessment of the risk that the executive would leave us and the harm to our business initiatives if the executive left;
the retention value of executive equity holdings, including outstanding stock options and RSU awards;
the dilutive effect on the interests of our shareholders of long-term equity-based incentive awards; and
anticipated share-based compensation expense as determined under applicable accounting rules.
The compensation committee also considers the recommendations of our CEO with respect to executive compensation to be paid to other executives. In making its final decision regarding the form and amount of compensation to be paid to our named executive officers (other than the CEO), the compensation committee considers and gives great weight to the recommendations of the CEO recognizing that due to his reporting and otherwise close relationship with each executive, the CEO often is in a better position than the compensation committee to evaluate the performance of each executive (other than himself). In making its final decision regarding the form and amount of compensation to be paid to the CEO, the compensation committee considers the results of the CEO’s self-review and his individual annual performance review by the compensation committee, benchmarking data gathered by our compensation consultant, and the recommendations of our non-executive directors.
Role of Management. Three members of our executive team play a role in our executive compensation process and regularly attend meetings of the compensation committee - the CEO, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, and Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary. The CEO assists the compensation committee primarily by making formal recommendations regarding the amount and type of compensation to be paid to executives (other than himself). In making these recommendations, the CEO considers many of the same factors listed above that the compensation committee considers in setting executive compensation, including in particular the results of each executive’s annual performance review and the executive’s achievement of his or her individual management performance objectives established in connection with our PIP, described below. The Senior Vice President, Human Resources assists the compensation committee primarily by gathering compensation related data regarding executives and coordinating the exchange of this information and other executive compensation information among the members of the compensation committee, the compensation committee’s compensation consultant and management in anticipation of compensation committee meetings. The Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary assists the compensation committee primarily by ensuring compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and educating the committee on executive compensation trends and best practices from a corporate governance perspective and acting as corporate secretary of meetings. Final deliberations and decisions regarding the compensation to be paid to each executive, however, are made by our board of directors or compensation committee without the presence of the executive.
Role of Consultant. The compensation committee has retained the services of Mercer (US) Inc. (Mercer) to provide executive compensation advice. Mercer’s engagement by the compensation committee includes reviewing and advising on all significant respect.

aspects of executive compensation, as well as non-executive director compensation. This includes base salaries, short-term cash incentives and long-term equity incentives for executives. At the request of the compensation committee, each year, Mercer recommends a peer group of companies, collects relevant market data from these companies to allow the compensation committee


to compare elements of our compensation program to those of our peers, provides information on executive compensation trends and implications for us and makes other recommendations to the compensation committee regarding certain aspects of our executive compensation program. Our management, principally the Senior Vice President, Human Resources and the chair of the compensation committee, regularly consult with a representative of Mercer before compensation committee meetings. A representative of Mercer regularly attends meetings of the compensation committee. In making its final decision regarding the form and amount of compensation to be paid to executives, the compensation committee considers the information gathered by and recommendations of Mercer. The compensation committee values Mercer’s benchmarking information and input regarding best practices and trends in executive compensation matters.
Use of Peer Group and Other Market Data. To help determine appropriate levels of compensation for certain elements of our executive compensation program, the compensation committee reviews annually the compensation levels of our named executive officers and other executives against the compensation levels of comparable positions with companies similar to us in terms of industry, revenues, products and operations. The elements of our executive compensation program to which the compensation committee “benchmarks” or uses to base or justify a compensation decision or to structure a framework for compensating executives include base salary, short-term cash incentive opportunity, and long-term equity incentives. With respect to other elements of our executive compensation program, such as perquisites, severance, and change in control arrangements, the compensation committee benchmarks these elements on a periodic or as needed basis and in some cases uses peer group or market data more as a “market check” after determining the compensation on some other basis. The compensation committee believes that compensation paid by peer group companies is more representative of the compensation required to attract, retain, and motivate our executive talent than broader survey data and that compensation paid by peer companies that are in the same industry, with similar products and operations, and with revenues in a range similar to us, generally provides more relevant comparisons.
In 2015, Mercer worked with the post-Wright/Tornier merger compensation committee to identify a peer group of 13 companies that the compensation committee approved at its first in-person meeting in the Netherlands after completion of the merger in October 2015. Companies in the peer group are public companies in the health care equipment and supplies business with products and operations similar to ours and that had annual revenues generally within a range of our then-anticipated post-merger annual revenues. The peer group included the following companies:
The Cooper Companies, Inc.Masimo CorporationNuVasive, Inc.
Globus Medical, Inc.Merit Medical Systems, Inc.ResMed Inc.
Greatbatch, Inc.Natus Medical IncorporatedSirona Dental Systems, Inc.
Haemonetics CorporationNxStage Medical, Inc.Thoratec Corporation
Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation
The table below sets forth certain revenue and other financial information as of a date available prior to the date Mercer used to compile the proposed peer group and market capitalization information as of February 28, 2015 regarding the peer group that the compensation committee used in connection with its recommendations and decisions regarding executive compensation for 2016. The percentile rank was the anticipated rank of the combined company based on then anticipated 12-month revenue and market capitalization.
 
Trailing 12-month revenue
(in millions)
 
Three-year
revenue growth
 
Trailing
12-month EBIT
 
Market capitalization
(in millions)
25th percentile
$478 25% $69 $1,325
50th percentile
688 34% 93 2,171
75th percentile
928 42% 143 2,299
Percentile rank51% N/A N/A 78%
In reviewing benchmarking data, the compensation committee recognizes that benchmarking may not always be appropriate as a stand-alone tool for setting compensation due to aspects of our business and objectives that may be unique to us. Nevertheless, the compensation committee believes that gathering this information is an important part of its compensation-related decision-making process. However, where a sufficient basis for comparison does not exist between the peer group data and an executive, the compensation committee gives less weight to the peer group data. For example, relative compensation benchmarking analysis does not consider individual specific performance or experience or other case-by-case factors that may be relevant in hiring or retaining a particular executive.
Market Positioning. In general, we target base salary and total compensation levels to be within a reasonable range of the 67th percentile of our peer group. However, the specific competitiveness of any individual executive’s pay will be determined considering factors like the executive’s experience, skills and capabilities, contributions as a member of the executive management team, and contributions to our overall performance. The compensation committee will also consider the sufficiency of total compensation

potential and the structure of pay plans to ensure the hiring or retention of an executive when considering the compensation potential that may be available elsewhere.
Tax Deductibility of Compensation
In designing our executive compensation program, we consider the deductibility of executive compensation under Code Section 162(m), which provides that we may not deduct more than $1 million paid to certain executive officers, other than “performance-based” compensation meeting certain requirements. Our stock incentive plan incorporates provisions intended to satisfy the requirements for awarding “performance-based” compensation as defined in Code Section 162(m) under the plan. Other than stock options, we did not grant any other “performance-based” compensation under the plan during 2016. In addition, while we designed our plan to operate in a manner intended to qualify as “performance-based” under Code Section 162(m), the compensation committee may administer the plan in a manner that does not satisfy the requirements of Code Section 162(m) to achieve a result that the compensation committee determines to be appropriate.
Compensation Committee Report

Our

The compensation committee has reviewed and discussed the foregoing “Compensation“-Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this reportAnalysis” with our management. Based on this review and these discussions, ourthe compensation committee has recommended to our board of directors that the foregoing “Compensation“-Compensation Discussion and Analysis”Analysis be included in this annual reportour Annual Report on Form 10-K.

This report is dated February 10, 2014.

10-K for the year ended December 25, 2016 and proxy statement in connection with our 2017 annual general meeting of shareholders.

Compensation Committee

Sean D. Carney

Richard W. Wallman

John L. Miclot
Elizabeth H. Weatherman

Executive Compensation

Tables and Narratives

Summary Compensation

Information

The table below provides summary information concerning all compensation awarded to, earned by, or paid to the individuals that served as our principal executive officer andor principal financial officer during the year ended December 25, 2016 and other named executive officers for each of the last three fiscal years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and January 1, 2012.

of which they served as an executive officer.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE – 2013

Name and principal position

 
Year
  
Salary(1)

($)
  
Bonus(2)

($)
  Stock
awards(3)

($)
  Option
awards(4)
($)
  Non-equity
incentive plan
compensation(5)
($)
  All other
compensation(6)
($)
  Total
($)
 

David H. Mowry(7)

President and Chief Executive

Officer and Executive Director

  

 

 

2013

2012

2011

  

  

  

  

 

 

444,334

341,591

143,844

  

  

  

  

 

 

0

0

0

  

  

  

  

 

 

687,758

192,630

436,313

  

  

  

  

 

 

689,921

195,481

539,650

  

  

  

  

 

 

106,285

17,666

46,627

  

  

  

  

 

 

27,673

42,251

35,706

  

  

  

  

 

 

1,955,971

789,619

1,202,140

  

  

  

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Shawn T McCormick(8)

Chief Financial Officer

  

 

2013

2012

  

  

  

 

354,411

114,198

  

  

  

 

0

75,000

  

  

  

 

240,848

354,488

  

  

  

 

241,636

357,207

  

  

  

 

47,686

5,710

  

  

  

 

3,707

0

  

  

  

 

888,288

906,603

  

  

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Gordon W. Van Ummersen(9)

Senior Vice President, Global

Product Delivery

  2013    196,314    80,000    475,161    476,721    26,414    21,510    1,276,120  
 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Stéphan Epinette(10)

Senior Vice President,

International Commercial Operations

  

 

 

2013

2012

2011

  

  

  

  

 

 

322,567

297,688

299,620

  

  

  

  

 

 

43,699

0

28,636

  

  

  

  

 

 

208,853

143,323

186,186

  

  

  

  

 

 

209,535

145,192

236,519

  

  

  

  

 

 

7,220

48,962

81,960

  

  

  

  

 

 

97,608

87,988

99,002

  

  

  

  

 

 

889,482

723,153

931,923

  

  

  

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Terry M. Rich(11)

Senior Vice President, U.S. Commercial

Operations

  

 

2013

2012

  

  

  

 

358,823

282,468

  

  

  

 

0

0

  

  

  

 

244,116

614,993

  

  

  

 

244,915

735,654

  

  

  

 

16,093

21,185

  

  

  

 

0

0

  

  

  

 

863,947

1,654,300

  

  

- 2016
Name and principal position Year 


Salary(1)
($)
 


Bonus(2)
($)
 

Stock awards(3)
($)
 

Option
awards(4)
($)
 
Non-equity incentive plan compensation(5)
($)
 
All other
compen-sation(6)
($)
 


Total
($)
Robert J. Palmisano(7)
President and Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director
 2016 866,499
  2,003,654
 2,004,824
 1,435,928
 264,272
 6,575,177
 2015 222,068
  5,972,830
 5,914,722
 1,247,655
 1,668,463
 15,025,738
Lance A. Berry(8)
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 2016 409,119
  449,375
 449,628
 418,650
 17,430
 1,744,202
 2015 105,894
  837,275
 829,143
 343,379
 253,346
 2,369,037
Kevin D. Cordell(9)
President, U.S.
 2016 429,789
  432,510
 432,765
 376,693
 16,600
 1,688,357
Peter S. Cooke(10)
President, International
 2016 384,000
  214,970
 215,092
 289,893
 275,834
 1,379,789
Robert P. Burrows(11)
Senior Vice President, Supply Chain
 2016 514,538
  281,855
 282,024
 404,875
 10,600
 1,493,892
____________________
(1)From June 27, 2013 and through December 29, 2013, 5%Five percent of Mr. Mowry’sPalmisano’s annual base salary was allocated to his service as aan executive director and member of our board of directors.
(2)We generally do not pay any discretionary bonuses or bonuses that are subjectively determined and did not pay any such bonuses to any named executive officers in 2013, 2012 or 2011, except as described below under “—Contingent Sign-On and Other Discretionary Bonuses.”2016. Annual cash incentive bonus payouts based on performance against pre-established performance goals under our corporate performance incentive plan and in the case of Mr. Epinette, our French incentive compensation scheme, are reported in the “Non-equity incentive plan compensation” column.
(3)AmountAmounts reported representsrepresent the aggregate grant date fair value for stockRSU awards granted to each named executive officer computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The grant date fair value is determined based on the per share closing sale price of our ordinary shares on the grant date.

(4)AmountAmounts reported representsrepresent the aggregate grant date fair value for option awards granted to each named executive officer computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The grant date fair value is determined based on our Black-Scholes option pricing model. The table below sets forth the specific assumptions used in the valuation of each such option award:

Grant

date

  Grant date
fair value
per share ($)
   Risk free
interest rate
  Expected
Life
   Expected
volatility
  Expected
dividend
yield
 

08/09/2013

   9.03     1.70  6.11 years     46.58  0  

02/26/2013

   7.92     1.00  6.11 years     47.21  0  

09/04/2012

   8.38     0.85  6.11 years     48.03  0  

08/28/2012

   8.30     0.95  6.25 years     47.94  0  

08/10/2012

   8.37     0.93  6.11 years     48.14  0  

03/12/2012

   11.04     1.20  6.11 years     48.65  0  

08/12/2011

   11.13     1.29  6.11 years     48.33  0  

05/12/2011

   12.34     2.26  6.11 years     48.60  0  


Grant
date
 
Grant date
fair value
per share ($)
 

Risk free
interest rate
 

Expected
life
 

Expected
volatility
 
Expected
dividend
yield
07/19/2016 7.40 1.125% 6.08 years 34.00% 
10/13/2015 7.06 1.375% 6.08 years 32.70% 
(5)Represents amounts paidAmounts reported represent payouts under our corporate performance incentive plan and for Mr. Epinette, also under our French incentive compensation scheme. The amount reflected for each year reflectsreflect the amounts earned for that year but paid during the following year.
(6)The amounts shown
Amounts reported in this column for 2013 include the following with respect to each named executive officer:

Name

  Retirement
benefits(a)
($)
   Perquisites and other
personal benefits(b)
($)
   Total
($)
 

Mr. Mowry

   7,350     20,323     27,673  

Mr. McCormick

   3,707     —       3,707  

Mr. Van Ummersen

   4,010     17,500     21,510  

Mr. Epinette

   70,841     26,767     97,608  

Mr. Rich

   —       —       —    

(a)Represents 401(k) matching contributions2016 are described under the Tornier, Inc. 401(k) plan“-All Other Compensation for Messrs. Mowry, McCormick and Ummersen, and for Mr. Epinette the following retirement contributions on his behalf: (i) $5,366 in contributions to the French government mandated pension plan; (ii) $46,710 in contributions to our French operating subsidiary’s Retraite Complémentaire; and (iii) $18,765 in contributions to our French operating subsidiary’s Retraite Supplémentaire.2016 - Supplemental.
(b)Represents $20,323 in a housing stipend for Mr. Mowry, $17,500 in temporary living stipend for Mr. Van Ummersen and $26,767 in automobile expenses for Mr. Epinette.

(7)Mr. MowryPalmisano was appointed our President and Chief Executive Officer effective upon completion of the Wright/Tornier merger, on October 1, 2015. Prior to such time, Mr. Palmisano served as President and Chief Executive Officer effective February 12, 2013, Interim Presidentof Wright Medical Group, Inc. and, Chief Executive Officer effective November 12, 2012in such capacity, earned or was awarded or paid salary and other compensation by legacy Wright prior to such position served as Chief Operating Officer effective July 20, 2011.October 1, 2015, which amounts are not included in the above table.
(8)Mr. McCormickBerry was appointed asour Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective September 4, 2012.
(9)upon completion of the Wright/Tornier merger, on October 1, 2015. Prior to such time, Mr. Van Ummersen was appointedBerry served as Senior Vice President Product Delivery effective June 3, 2013 and Senior Vice President, Global Product Delivery effective January 14, 2014.Chief Financial Officer of Wright Medical Group, Inc. and, in such capacity, earned or was paid salary and other compensation by legacy Wright prior to October 1, 2015, which amounts are not included in the above table.
(9)Mr. Cordell was not a named executive officer in 2015 or 2014; therefore, his information is only provided for 2016.
(10)Mr. Epinette’s cash compensationCooke was paidnot a named executive officer in Euro. The foreign currency exchange rate of 1.3277 U.S. dollars2015 or 2014; therefore, his information is only provided for 1 Euro, which reflects an average conversion rate for 2013, was used to calculate Mr. Epinette’s base salary and all other compensation amounts for 2013, except for his April 2013 discretionary bonus where a foreign currency exchange rate of 1.307 U.S. dollars for 1 Euro was used and his non-equity incentive plan compensation and February 2014 discretionary bonus where a foreign currency exchange rate of 1.368 U.S. dollars for 1 Euro was used, which represent the respective foreign exchange rates on the dates of corporate approval of such amounts.2016.
(11)Mr. Rich was appointed as Senior Vice President, U.S. Commercial Operations effective March 12, 2012.

Employment

(11)Mr. Burrows was not a named executive officer in 2015 or 2014; therefore, his information is only provided for 2016.
Agreements with Robert J. Palmisano. We, throughEffective October 1, 2015, we entered into a service agreement and one of our operating subsidiaries typically executeentered into an employment agreements in conjunctionagreement with the hiring or promotion ofRobert J. Palmisano, our President and Chief Executive Officer.
The service agreement deals with certain Dutch law matters relating to Mr. Palmisano’s role as an executive officer. Our nameddirector. Under the terms of the service agreement, we have allocated a portion of Mr. Palmisano’s annual base salary to his service as an executive officersdirector, which amounts are generally compensated bypaid after deduction of applicable withholdings for taxes and social security contributions. In addition, under the terms of the service agreement, we have agreed to provide Mr. Palmisano with indemnification and director and officer liability insurance, on terms and conditions that are at least as favorable to Mr. Palmisano as those then provided to any other current or former director or executive officer of our company or any of our affiliates.
The employment agreement provides that during the term of the agreement, Mr. Palmisano will serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of our company and each principal operating subsidiary and will report to whichour Chairman and board of directors. During the term, we agreed to nominate Mr. Palmisano for election as an executive director and member of our board of directors at each annual general meeting of shareholders. The employment agreement expires on December 31, 2018, subject to earlier termination under certain circumstances. Commencing on October 1, 2017 and on each anniversary thereafter, the term will automatically extend for an additional one-year period, unless at least 30 days prior to such named executive officer primarily provided services. Tornier, Inc., our primary U.S. operating subsidiary, is adate, either party gives notice of non-extension to the other.
With respect to compensation, the employment agreements with Messrs. Mowry, McCormick, Van Ummersen and Rich, which agreements are substantially the same, other than differences inagreement established an annual base salary target annual bonus percentagesfor Mr. Palmisano and severance.provides that our board of directors will review his compensation at least annually for any increase. The employment agreements haveagreement acknowledges that a specified termcertain percentage of three years and are subject to automatic renewal for one-year terms unless either we or the executive provides 60 days’ advance notice of a desire not to renew the agreement. Under the agreements, each executive is entitled to a specifiedMr. Palmisano’s base salary subject to increase but not decrease,will be paid by Wright Medical Group N.V. in consideration for his services as an executive director under the service agreement described above. The employment agreement provides that Mr. Palmisano is eligible to receive an annual cashperformance incentive bonus with a targetpursuant to the Wright Medical Group N.V. Performance Incentive Plan and, if applicable, the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan, depending on whether, and to what extent, certain performance goals established by the compensation committee for such year have been achieved. The amount of the performance incentive bonus equalpayable to a specified percentageMr. Palmisano will be targeted at 100% of his annual base salary and will not exceed 200% of his annual base salary. The employment agreement provides that Mr. Palmisano will receive an annual equity grant under our stock incentive plan (or any successor plan) equal to 300% of his annual base salary, and comprised 50% non-qualified stock options and 50% RSU awards, unless the board of directors establishes a different percentage as specified in the agreement. In addition, the employment agreement provides that Mr. Palmisano is entitledeligible to participate in the employeefringe benefit plansprograms, including those for medical and arrangementsdisability insurance and retirement benefits that we generally maintainmake available to our executive officers from time to time. During the term, Mr. Palmisano will be reimbursed for up to $1,000 for personal insurance premiums, other than for insurance coverage that pays for medical, prescription drug, dental, vision, or other medical care expenses. In addition, he may elect, in accordance with our senior executives.cafeteria plan rules, not to participate in the medical and disability insurance

programs provided by us, in which case, we will pay him up to $900 per month (or such greater amount that we would otherwise pay for medical and disability coverage for him and his spouse under our benefits programs). Mr. Palmisano is also entitled to receive reimbursement for up to $15,000 for financial and tax planning and tax preparation, and an annual physical examination at our expense. The employment agreementsagreement also containprovides for a monthly allowance of $7,500 for housing and automobile expenses, and Mr. Palmisano will be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses between Memphis, Tennessee and his residences. To the extent that these reimbursements are not deductible by Mr. Palmisano for income tax purposes, such amounts will be “grossed-up” for income tax purposes so that the reimbursed items will be received net of any deduction for income and payroll taxes. The employment agreement contains severance provisions which areas described in more detail under the heading “—“-Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change in Control”Control.” We have guaranteed the obligations of our subsidiary under Mr. Palmisano’s employment agreement.
Mr. Palmisano and one of our subsidiaries also entered into a confidentiality, non-competition, non-solicitation and intellectual property rights agreement, pursuant to which Mr. Palmisano agreed to certain covenants intended to protect against the disclosurethat impose obligations on him regarding confidentiality of confidential information, duringtransfer of inventions, non-solicitation of employees, customers and following

employment, as well as restrictions on engaging in competitionsuppliers, and non-competition with our company or otherwise interferingbusiness.

Agreements with Other Named Executive Officers.Each of the other named executive officers also is a party to a confidentiality, non-competition, non-solicitation and intellectual property rights agreement with us, the material terms of which are substantially similar to Mr. Palmisano’s agreement, as described above. In addition, through one of our subsidiaries, we have entered into separation pay agreements with our business relationships,named executive officers who are currently executive officers, other than Mr. Palmisano, which extend through the one-year anniversary of an executive’s termination of employment for any reason. With respect to certain executives, the employment agreements provide for certain limited additional benefits, which are described in more detail under the heading “—Perquisites and Personal Benefits.”

Tornier SAS, our French operating subsidiary, is a party to an employment agreement with Mr. Epinette, which does not have a specified term, but which may be terminated by either party in accordance with local law, and which is substantially similar to the employment agreements described above with respect to base salary, annual target bonus, benefit participation and non-compete obligations. Pursuant to the agreement and French labor laws, Mr. Epinette is entitled to receive certain payments and benefits following a voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, which are described under the heading “—“-Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change in Control.Control.

Equity

In the beginning of 2016, as part of our merger integration efforts, we asked Peter S. Cooke, our President, International to relocate his family to the United Kingdom and Non-Equity Incentive Compensation. During 2013, our named executive officers received grantsbuild an international headquarters and team. Despite his initial hesitation to do so, Mr. Cooke agreed. To incentivize him to relocate, we entered into a retention letter agreement with him under which we agreed to provide him certain expat relocation and temporary assignment benefits customarily provided to executives in such situations. We also agreed to pay him a $1.2 million retention payment on the second anniversary of stock optionshis relocation, subject to his continuing employment through such date and stock awardsother specified terms and conditions. This retention payment, if made, would be in lieu of any future change in control or severance payment Mr. Cooke otherwise would be entitled to receive under our stock incentive plan. These grantshis separation pay agreement. If Mr. Cooke voluntarily terminates his employment prior to the completion of his two-year assignment, he will not receive the retention payment. If we terminate his employment without cause or he terminates his employment for good reason prior to the completion of his two-year assignment, he will receive the retention payment. His expat relocation and our stock incentive plantemporary assignment benefits are standard and customary for executives relocating to the United Kingdom and are described in more detail under the headings “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” and “—Grants of Plan-Based Awards.” Our named executive officers also received annual cash incentive bonuses under our corporate performance incentive plan“-All Other Compensation for their 2013 performance. In addition, Mr. Epinette will receive an annual cash incentive bonus in mid-2014 under our French incentive compensation scheme for 2013 performance. The bonus amounts and these plans are described in more detail under the headings “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” and “—Grants of Plan-Based Awards.2016-Supplemental.

Contingent Sign-On and Other Discretionary Bonuses.During 2013, we paid an $80,000 sign-on bonus to Mr. Van Ummersen that is contingent upon his employment for at least one year. The only other discretionary bonuses that we paid during 2013 were a €31,944 discretionary bonus to Mr. Epinette to recognize the performance of our international business during 2013 and a €21,000 discretionary bonus to Mr. Epinette to recognize the performance of our international business during the first quarter of 2013.

Retirement Benefits. Under the Tornier, Inc. 401(k) Plan, participants, including our named executive officers, other than Mr. Epinette, may voluntarily request that we reduce his or her pre-tax compensation and contribute such amounts to the 401(k) plan’s trust up to certain statutory maximums. We contribute matching contributions in an amount equal to 3% of the participant’s eligible earnings for a pay period, or if less, 50% of the participant’s pre-tax 401(k) contributions (other than catch-up contributions) for that pay period. Mr. Epinette participates in our French operating subsidiary’s

government-mandated pension plan,government-mandated pension plan for managerial staff, the Retraite Complémentaire, and defined contribution pension plan for key employees, the Retraite Supplémentaire, in each case on the same basis as other key employees of our French operating subsidiary. In 2013, pursuant to the Retraite Supplémentaire, our French operating subsidiary made contributions equal to approximately 6.5% of Mr. Epinette’s base salary on Mr. Epinette’s behalf. The Retraite Supplémentaire is intended to supplement the state pension plans mandated by French labor laws and to provide participants with a form of compensation that is efficient with respect to income tax and mandated social contributions. Except for our French operating subsidiary’s government-mandated pension plan and a government-mandated pension plan for managerial staff, we do not provide pension arrangements or post-retirement health coverage for our employees, including our named executive officers. We also do not provide any nonqualified defined contribution or other deferred compensation plans.

Perquisites and Personal Benefits. With respect to perquisites and personal benefits, during 2013, we provided a $3,000 monthly housing stipend for Mowry through July 2013, a $2,500 temporary living stipend for Mr. Van Ummersen and an automobile allowance for Mr. Epinette. The only other benefits that our named executive officers receive are benefits that are also received by our other employees, including the retirement benefits described above, an ability to purchase our ordinary shares at a discount with payroll deductions under our employee stock purchase plan and medical, dental, vision and life insurance benefits.

Indemnification Agreements. We have entered into indemnification agreements with all of our named executive officers. The indemnification agreements are governed by the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) and provide, among other things, for indemnification to the fullest extent permitted by law and our articles of association against any and all expenses (including attorneys’ fees) and liabilities, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonablythat are paid or incurred by the executive or on his or her behalf in connection with such action, suit or proceeding and any appeal therefrom.proceeding. We will be obligated to pay these amounts only if the executive acted in good faith and in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of our company, and, with respect to any criminal action, suit or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful.company. The indemnification agreements provide that the executive will not be indemnified and advanced expenses (i)advanced with respect to an action, suit or proceeding initiated by the executive unless (i) so authorized or consented to by our board of directors or (ii) with respect to any action, suit or proceeding instituted by the executive to enforce or interpret the indemnification agreement unless the executive is successful in establishing a right to indemnificationcompany has joined in such action, suit or proceeding in whole or in part, or unless and to(ii) the extent that the court in such action, suit or proceeding determines that, despiteis one to enforce the executive’s failurerights under the indemnification agreement. The company’s indemnification and expense advance obligations are subject to establish the rightcondition that an appropriate person or body not party to indemnification, hethe particular action, suit or sheproceeding shall not have determined that the executive is entitlednot permitted to indemnity for such expenses.be indemnified under applicable law. The indemnification agreementagreements also set forth procedures that apply in the event an executive requests indemnification or an expense advance.

All Other Compensation for 2016 - Supplemental.The table below provides information concerning amounts reported in the “All other compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table for 2016 with respect to each named executive officer. Additional detail on these amounts are provided below the table.
Name 
Retirement benefits
$
 
Housing/car allowance
$
 
Commu-ting expense
$
 
Relocation benefits
$
 
Financial and tax planning
$
 
Insurance premium
$
 
Gross-up
$
 Office allowance $ 
COLA
$
 
Educa-tional expenses
$
 Other
$
 
Total other compen-sation
$
Mr. Palmisano 10,600
 90,000
 49,854
 
 5,000
 10,800
 98,018
 
 
 
 
 264,272
Mr. Berry 10,600
 
 
 
 5,000
 1,000
 
 
 
 
 830
 17,430
Mr. Cordell 10,600
 
 
 
 5,000
 1,000
 
 
 
 
 
 16,600
Mr. Cooke 
 199,841
 
 10,000
 
 
 
 36,000
 12,401
 17,592
 
 275,834
Mr. Burrows 10,600
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 10,600

Retirement Benefits. Under our 401(k) Plan, participants, including our named executive officers, may voluntarily request that we reduce his or her pre-tax compensation and contribute such amounts to the 401(k) plan’s trust up to certain statutory maximums. We contribute matching contributions in an amount equal to 3% of the participant’s eligible earnings for a claimpay period, or if less, 50% of the participant’s pre-tax 401(k) contributions (other than catch-up contributions) for indemnification.

that pay period. We do not provide any nonqualified defined contribution or other deferred compensation plans for our executives.

Relocation, Assignment and Expat Benefits. We provide our named executive officers with customary relocation assistance benefits if they relocate at our request. For international assignments, we also provide customary assignment and expat benefits that are consistent with local policies and practices. Tax protection may be provided in these situations to avoid an executive being penalized from a tax perspective for a relocation or expat service on behalf of our company. As described above, during 2016, we asked Mr. Cooke, President, International, to relocate his family to the United Kingdom and build an international headquarters and team. To compensate and incentivize Mr. Cooke to relocate, we agreed to provide him standard and customary relocation, temporary assignment and expat benefits. These include cost-of-living adjustments, medical coverage, housing allowance, educational tuition fees and related transportation costs, car lease, reimbursement of certain relocation expenses and tax and tax equalization benefits.
Perquisites and Personal Benefits. The only perquisites and personal benefits provided to our named executive officers are $1,000 for certain personal insurance premiums and up to $5,000 reimbursement for financial and tax planning and tax preparation, except in the case of Mr. Palmisano who is entitled to certain additional perquisites and personal benefits under his employment agreement, including up to $15,000 reimbursement for financial and tax planning and tax preparation, a monthly allowance of $7,500 for housing and automobile expenses, reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses between Memphis, Tennessee and his residences, and an annual physical examination. To the extent that the reimbursements for his housing and automobile expenses and travel expenses between Memphis, Tennessee and his residences are not deductible by Mr. Palmisano for income tax purposes, such amounts are “grossed-up” for income tax purposes so that the reimbursed items will be received net of any deduction for income and payroll taxes.
Grants of Plan-Based Awards

The table below provides information concerning grants of plan-based awards to each of our named executive officers during the year ended December 29, 2013.25, 2016. Non-equity incentive plan-based awards were granted to our named executive officers under our corporate performance incentive plan, the material terms of which are described under “-Compensation Discussion and in the case of Mr. Epinette, our French incentive compensation scheme.Analysis. Stock awards (in the form of RSU awards) and option awards were granted under our stock incentive plan. The material terms of these awards and the material plan provisions relevant to these awards are described under “-Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” or in the notes to the table below or in the narrative following the table below. We did not grant any “equity incentive plan” awards within the meaning of the SEC rules during the year ended December 29, 2013.

25, 2016.

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS – 2013

       Board   Estimated future payouts under
non-equity incentive plan awards(2)
   

All other

stock
awards:

number of
shares of

   

All other

option
awards:

number of

securities

   

Exercise
or base

price of

option

   

Grant date
fair value

stock and

 

Name

  Grant
date
   approval
date(1)
   Threshold(3)
($)
   Target
($)
   Maximum(4)
($)
   stock or
units(5) (#)
   underlying
options(6) (#)
   awards
($/Sh)
   Option
awards(7) ($)
 

David H. Mowry

                  

Cash incentive award

   N/A     02/12/13     35,547     355,467     497,654          

Stock option

   02/26/13     02/12/13             17,466     17.28     138,284  

Stock grant

   02/26/13     02/12/13           7,982         137,929  

Stock option

   08/09/13     08/01/13             61,057     19.45     551,638  

Stock grant

   08/09/13     08/01/13           28,269         549,829  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Shawn T McCormick

                  

Cash incentive award

   N/A     02/12/13     17,721     177,206     248,088          

Stock option

   08/09/13     08/01/13             26,745     19.45     241,636  

Stock grant

   08/09/13     08/01/13           12,383         240,848  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Gordon W. Van Ummersen

                  

Cash incentive award

   N/A     06/10/13     9,816     98,157     137,420          

Stock option

   08/09/13     08/01/13             52,765     19.45     476,721  

Stock grant

   08/09/13     08/01/13           24,430         475,161  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Stéphan Epinette

                  

Cash incentive award

   N/A     02/12/13     12,903     129,027     180,637          

French incentive comp. scheme award

   N/A     06/29/13     806     24,584     24,584          

Stock option

   08/09/13     08/01/13             23,192     19.45     209,535  

Stock grant

   08/09/13     08/01/13           10,738         208,853  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Terry M. Rich

                  

Cash incentive award

   N/A     02/12/13     26,912     269,117     376,764          

Stock option

   08/09/13     08/01/13             27,108     19.45     244,915  

Stock grant

   08/09/13     08/01/13           12,551         244,116  

- 2016
    
Board approval
date
 
Estimated future payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards(1)
 
All other stock awards: number of shares of stock or
units(4) (#)
 
All other option awards: number of securities underlying options(5) (#)
 
Exercise or base price of option awards
($/Sh)
 
Grant date fair value stock and option awards(6) ($)
Name 
Grant
date
  
Thres-hold(2) ($)
 
Target
($)
 
Maxi-mum(3) ($)
    
Robert J. Palmisano                 
  Cash incentive award N/A 2/16/16 46,082
 921,648
 1,843,296
 
 
 
 
  Stock option 7/19/16 7/19/16 
 
 
 
 271,076
 21.24
 2,004,824
  Stock grant 7/19/16 7/19/16 
 
 
 94,334
 
 
 2,003,654
Lance A. Berry                 
  Cash incentive award N/A 2/16/16 13,436
 268,710
 537,420
 
 
 
 
  Stock option 7/19/16 7/19/16 
 
 
 
 60,795
 21.24
 449,628
  Stock grant 7/19/16 7/19/16 
 
 
 21,157
 
 
 449,375
Kevin D. Cordell                 
  Cash incentive award N/A 2/16/16 10,914
 272,844
 545,688
 
 
 
 
  Stock option 7/19/16 7/19/16 
 
 
 
 58,515
 21.24
 432,765
  Stock grant 7/19/16 7/19/16 
 
 
 20,363
 
 
 432,510
Peter S. Cooke                 
  Cash incentive award N/A 2/16/16 15,840
 211,200
 422,400
 
 
 
 
  Stock option 7/19/16 7/19/16 
 
 
 
 29,083
 21.24
 215,092
  Stock grant 7/19/16 7/19/16 
 
 
 10,121
 
 
 214,970

    
Board approval
date
 
Estimated future payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards(1)
 
All other stock awards: number of shares of stock or
units(4) (#)
 
All other option awards: number of securities underlying options(5) (#)
 
Exercise or base price of option awards
($/Sh)
 
Grant date fair value stock and option awards(6) ($)
Name 
Grant
date
  
Thres-hold(2) ($)
 
Target
($)
 
Maxi-mum(3) ($)
    
Robert P. Burrows                 
  Cash incentive award N/A 2/16/16 12,965
 259,303
 518,606
 
 
 
 
  Stock option 7/19/16 7/19/16 
 
 
 
 38,133
 21.24
 282,024
  Stock grant 7/19/16 7/19/16 
 
 
 13,270
 
 
 281,855
____________________
(1)With respect to stock awards and option awards, the grant date was not necessarily the board approval date since the grant date was the third full trading day after the public release of our then most recent financial results. With respect to newly hired officers, the grant date may be the first day of their employment.
(2)Represents amounts payable under our corporate performance incentive plan for 2013, which was approved by our board of directors on February 12, 2013. The threshold, target and maximumAmounts reported represent estimated future payouts for Mr. Van Ummersen have been prorated to reflect his June 10, 2013 start date. In addition, for Mr. Epinette, also represents amounts payable under our French operating subsidiary’s incentive compensation scheme governed by an agreement entered into by our French operating subsidiary on June 29, 2013. The foreign currency exchange rate of 1.3277 U.S. dollars for 1 Euro, which reflects an average conversion rate for 2013, was used to calculate Mr. Epinette’s threshold, target and maximum awards. The actual amounts paid under the corporate performance incentive plan and Frenchplan. Actual payouts under these performance incentive compensation schemeplans are reflected in the “Non-equity incentive compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table.
(3)The threshold amount
(2)Threshold amounts for awards payable under our corporatethe performance incentive plan and our French operating subsidiary’s incentive compensation scheme assumesplans assume the satisfaction of the threshold level of the lowest weighted financialcorporate performance goal.
(4)
(3)Maximum amounts reflect payout of the portion of our annual cash incentive bonus tied to corporate financial performance goalspayouts at a maximum rate of 150%200% of target and the portion offor our annual cash incentive bonus tied to individual performance goals at a rate of 100% of target under our corporate performance incentive plan. Target and maximum payout amounts are the same for purposes of our French incentive compensation scheme.

(5)Represents
(4)Amounts reported represent stock grants in the form of restricted stock unitsRSU awards granted under our stock incentive plan. The restricted stock unitsRSU awards granted on July 19, 2016 vest and become issuable over time, with the last tranche becoming issuable on June 1, 2017,2020, in each case, so long as the individual remains an employee or consultant of our company.
(6)Represents
(5)Amounts reported represent options granted under our stock incentive plan. All options have a ten-year term and vest over a four-year period, with 25% of the underlying shares vesting on the one-year anniversary of the grant date and the remaining 75% of the underlying shares vesting over a three-year period thereafter in 1236 as nearly equal as possible quarterlymonthly installments.
(7)We refer you to
(6)See notes (3) and (4) to the Summary Compensation Table for a discussion of the assumptions made in calculating the grant date fair value of stock awards and option awards.

Tornier

Wright Medical Group N.V. Corporate Performance Incentive Plan. Plan. Under the terms of the TornierWright Medical Group N.V. Corporate Performance Incentive Plan, our named executive officers, as well as other employees, of our company, earn annualearned cash incentive bonuses based on our financial performance and individual objectives.for 2016. The material terms of the plan are described in detail under the heading “Compensation“-Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Short-TermAnalysis-Short-Term Cash Incentive Compensation.Compensation.

French Performance Incentive Compensation Scheme. Under the terms of the Tornier SAS Performance Incentive Compensation Scheme, Mr. Epinette, as well as other executives of our company who are employed by our French operating subsidiary, earn annual cash incentive bonuses based on our financial performance

Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and the financial performance of our French operating subsidiary. The material terms of the plan are described in detail under the heading “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Short-Term Cash Incentive Compensation.”

Tornier N.V.Restated 2010 Incentive Plan.At ouran extraordinary general meeting of shareholders held on August 26, 2010,June 18, 2015, our shareholders approved the TornierWright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan, which we refer to as our stock incentive plan, which permits the grant of a wide variety of equitystock-based and cash-based awards, to our employees, including our employees, directors and consultants, including incentive and non-qualified options, stock appreciation rights, stock grants, stock unit grants, cash-based awards, and other stock-based awards. Our stock incentive plan is designed to assist us in attracting and retaining our employees, directors and consultants, provide an additional incentive to such individuals to work to increase the value of our ordinary shares, and provide such individuals with a stake in our future which corresponds to the stake of each of our shareholders.

Our shareholders approved an amendment to the stock incentive plan on June 27, 2012 to increase the number of ordinary shares available for issuance under the plan.

The stock incentive plan as amended, reserves for issuance a number of ordinary shares equal to the sum of (i) the number of ordinary shares available for grant under our prior stock option planthe Tornier N.V. Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan as of February 2, 2011 (not including issued or outstanding shares granted pursuant to options under our prior stock optionsuch plan as of such date);, which was 1,199,296; (ii) the number of ordinary shares forfeited upon the expiration, cancellation, forfeiture, cash settlement, or other termination following February 2, 2011 of an option outstanding as of February 2, 2011 under our prior stock option plan; and (iii) 2.7 million.8,200,000. As of December 29, 2013, 2.1 million25, 2016, 1,233,923 ordinary shares remained available for grant under the stock incentive plan, and there were 3.2 million7,813,930 ordinary shares covering outstanding awards under such plan as of such date. For purposes of determining the remaining ordinary shares available for grant under the stock incentive plan, to the extent that an award expires or is cancelled, forfeited, settled in cash, or otherwise terminated without a delivery to the participant of the full number of ordinary shares to which the award related, the undelivered ordinary shares will again be available for grant. Similarly,Any ordinary shares withheld to satisfy tax withholding obligations in respect of awards issued under the plan, any ordinary shares withheld to pay the exercise price of awards issued under the plan and any ordinary shares not issued or surrendered in paymentdelivered as a result of the “net exercise” of an exercise price or taxes relating to an awardoutstanding option after June 18, 2015 are counted against the ordinary shares authorized for issuance under the plan.
The maximum aggregate number of ordinary shares subject to non-employee director awards to any one non-employee director in any one fiscal year may not exceed 100,000 ordinary shares; provided that such limit will not apply to any election by a non-employee director to receive shares in lieu of cash retainers and meeting fees. The following additional limits apply to awards payable to any participant in any calendar year. With respect to awards of stock incentive plan willoptions and SARs, no more than 2,000,000 ordinary shares may underlie awards issued to any one participant in a calendar year. For cash-based awards, no more than $5,000,000

may be deemedpayable to constituteany one participant in a calendar year, and for any other award based on, denominated in or otherwise related to shares, not deliveredno more than 2,000,000 ordinary shares may be issued to theany one participant and will be deemed to again be available for awards under the stock incentive plan. in a calendar year.
The total number of ordinary shares available for issuance under the stock incentive plan, and the number of ordinary shares subject to outstanding awards and the sub-limits on certain types of award grants are subject to adjustment in the event of any reorganization, merger, consolidation, recapitalization, liquidation, reclassification, stock dividend, stock split, combination of shares, rights offering, divestiture, or extraordinary dividend (including a spin off) or any other similar change in our corporate structure or ordinary shares.

Our board of directors has the ability to amend the stock incentive plan or any awards granted thereunder at any time, provided that, certain amendments are subject to approval by our shareholders and subject to certain exceptions, no amendment may adversely affect any outstanding award without the consent of the affected participant. Our board of directors also may suspend or terminate the stock incentive plan at any time, and, unless sooner terminated, the stock incentive plan will terminate on August 25, 2020.

Under the terms of the stock incentive plan, stock options must be granted with a per share exercise price equal to at least 100% of the fair market value of an ordinary share on the grant date. For purposes of the plan, the fair market value of ouran ordinary sharesshare is the closing sale price of our ordinary shares, as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market. We set the per share exercise price of all stock options granted under the plan at an amount at least equal to 100% of the fair market value of our ordinary shares on the grant date. Options become exercisable at such times and in such installments as may be determined by our board of directors, or compensation committee, provided that most options may not be exercisable after 10 years from their grant date. The vesting of our stock options is generally time-based and is as follows: 25% of the shares underlying the stock option vest on the one-year anniversary of the grant date and the remaining 75% of the underlying shares vest over a three-year period thereafter in 1236 as nearly equal as possible quarterlymonthly installments, in each case so long as the individual remains an employee or consultant of our company.

Currently, optionees must pay the exercise price of stock options in cash, except that ourthe compensation committee may allow payment to be made (in whole or in part) by a “cashless exercise” effected through an unrelated broker through a sale on the open market, by a “net exercise” of the option, or by a combination of such methods. In the case of a “net exercise” of an option, we will not require a payment of the exercise price of the option from the grantee but will reduce the number of our ordinary shares issued upon the exercise by the largest number of whole shares that has a fair market value that does not exceed the aggregate exercise price for the shares exercised under this method.

Under the terms of the grant certificates under which stock options have been granted to theour named executive officers, if an executive’s employment or service with our company terminates for any reason, other than upon a “life event,” the unvested portion of the option will immediately terminate and the executive’s right to exercise the then vested portion of the option will: (i)will immediately terminate, if the executive’s employment or service relationship with our company terminated for cause; (ii) continue for a period of one year if the executive’s employmentcause or service relationship with our company terminated as a result of his or her death or disability; or (iii) continue for a period of 90 days if the executive’s employment or service relationship with our company terminated for any reason, other than for cause or upon death or disability.

Upon a “life event,” defined as the executive’s death, disability or qualified retirement, a pro rata portion of the unvested portion of the option will immediately vest and the remaining unvested portion will immediately terminate and the executive’s right to exercise the then vested portion of the option will continue for a period of one year if the executive’s employment or service relationship with our company terminated as a result of his or her death or disability or continue for a period of 90 days if the executive’s employment or service relationship with our company terminated by reason of a qualified retirement.

Stock grants under the plan are made in the form of restricted stock unitsRSU awards and assuming the recipient continuously provides services to our company (whether as an employee or as a consultant) typically vest and the ordinary shares underlying such grantsawards are issued over time. The specific terms of vesting of a stock grant dependsan RSU award depend upon whether the award is a performance recognition grant, talent acquisition grant, special recognition grant, or discretionary grant. Performance recognition grants are typically made in mid-year and vest, or become issuable, in four as nearly equal as possible annual installments on June 1st of each year. Promotional performance recognition grants and talent acquisition grants granted to promoted employees and new employees and special recognition grants vest in a similar manner, except that the first installment is pro-rated, depending upon the grant date. Grants also may vest upon the achievement of certain financial performance goals, such as those based on revenue, expenses, profitability, productivity, cash flows, asset utilization, shareholder return, share price and other similar financial performance measures, or individual performance goals.

As a condition of receiving stock options or stock grants,RSU awards, recipients, including our named executive officers, must agree to pay all applicable tax withholding obligations in connection with the awards. With respect to stockawards, and in the case of our RSU grants, our executives must agree upon acceptance of the award to pay in cash all applicable tax withholding obligations, or alternatively, may givea “sell-to-cover” instruction pursuant to which the executive gives instructions to, and authorization anyauthorizes, a brokerage firm determined acceptable to us for such purpose to sell on the executive’s behalf that number of ordinary shares issuable upon vesting of the stock grantRSU award as we determinedetermined to be appropriate to generate cash proceeds sufficient to satisfy any applicable tax withholding obligation.

obligations.

Under the terms of the grant certificates under which RSU awards have been granted to the named executive officers, if an executive’s employment or service with our company terminates for any reason, other than death or disability or a qualified retirement, the unvested portion of the RSU award will immediately terminate. Upon an executive’s death, the unvested portion of the RSU award will immediately vest and the underlying shares will become issuable. Upon the termination of an executive’s employment or service relationship due to the executive’s disability or a qualified retirement, a pro rata portion of the unvested

RSU award will immediately vest and such underlying shares will become issuable and the remaining unvested portion will immediately terminate.
As described in more detail under the heading “—-Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control,” if a change in control of our company occurs, then, under the terms of our stock incentive plan, all outstanding options become immediately exercisable in full and remain exercisable for the remainder of their terms and all issuance conditions on all outstanding stock grantsRSU awards will be deemed satisfied; provided, however, that if any such issuance condition relates to satisfying any performance goal and there is a target for the goal, the issuance condition will be deemed satisfied generally only to the extent of the stated target.

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

The table below provides information regarding unexercised stock options and unvested stock awards that have not vested for each of our named executive officers that remained outstanding at our fiscal year-end, December 29, 2013.25, 2016. We did not have any “equity incentive plan” awards within the meaning of the SEC rules outstanding aton December 29, 2013.

25, 2016.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END – 2013

   Option awards   Stock awards 

Name

  Number of securities
underlying
unexercised options
(#)

exercisable
   Number of securities
underlying
unexercised options  (#)

unexercisable(1)
   Option
exercise
price ($)
   Option
expiration
date(2)
   Number of
shares or units
of stock that
have not
vested(3) (#)
   Market value of
shares or units
that have not
vested(4) ($)
 

David H. Mowry

   

 

27,275

7,301

  

  

   

 

21,215

16,064

  

  

   

 

23.61

18.04

  

  

   

 

08/12/2021

08/10/2022

  

  

    
   —       17,466     17.28     02/26/2023      
   —       61,057     19.45     08/09/2023      
       54,014     987,916  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Shawn T McCormick

   13,326     29,319     18.15     09/04/2022      
   —       26,745     19.45     08/09/2023      
       28,252     516,729  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Gordon W. Van Ummersen

   —       52,765     19.45     08/09/2023      
       24,430     446,825  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Stéphan Epinette

   66,666     —       16.98     05/01/2019      
   31,246     2,087     22.50     02/01/2020      
   11,191     6,719     27.31     12/01/2020      
   5,469     12,032     18.22     02/28/2022      
   —       23,192     19.45     08/09/2023      
       22,146     405,050  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Terry M. Rich

   24,364     31,326     23.36     03/12/2022      
   4,513     9,930     18.04     08/10/2022      
   —       27,108     19.45     08/09/2023      
       30,765     562,692  

- 2016
  Option awards Stock awards
Name 
Number of securities underlying unexercised
options (#) exercisable
 
Number of securities underlying unexercised
option (#)
unexercisable(1)
 Option exercise price ($) 


Option expiration date(2)
 
Number of shares or units of stock that have not vested(3) (#)
 
Market value of shares or units that have not vested(4) ($)
Robert J. Palmisano628,849
 
 15.55
 09/17/2021    
  4,112
 
 17.70
 04/16/2022    
  145,500
 
 20.75
 05/09/2022    
  9,771
 
 22.55
 04/17/2023    
  144,625
 
 23.93
 05/14/2023    
  7,939
 
 30.14
 04/01/2024    
  129,462
 
 29.06
 05/13/2024    
  244,413
 593,770
 20.62
 10/13/2025    
  
 271,076
 21.24
 07/19/2026    
          311,581
 7,262,953
Lance A. Berry10,309
 
 28.32
 05/14/2018    
  6,575
 
 15.01
 05/13/2019    
  9,635
 
 17.82
 05/13/2020    
  12,528
 
 15.04
 05/11/2021    
  1,924
 
 17.70
 04/16/2022    
  19,557
 
 20.75
 05/09/2022    
  30,602
 
 23.93
 05/14/2023    
  18,262
 
 29.06
 05/13/2024    
  34,262
 83,237
 20.62
 10/13/2025    
  
 60,795
 21.24
 07/19/2026    
          51,612
 1,203,076
Kevin D. Cordell34,626
 
 30.08
 09/26/2024    
  19,578
 47,564
 20.62
 10/13/2025    
  
 58,515
 21.24
 07/19/2026    
          37,766
 880,325
Peter S. Cooke54,122
 
 20.21
 01/31/2023    
  18,709
 
 29.06
 05/13/2024    
  18,915
 45,955
 20.62
 10/13/2025    
  
 29,083
 21.24
 07/19/2026    
          26,936
 627,878

  Option awards Stock awards
Name 
Number of securities underlying unexercised
options (#) exercisable
 
Number of securities underlying unexercised
option (#)
unexercisable(1)
 Option exercise price ($) 


Option expiration date(2)
 
Number of shares or units of stock that have not vested(3) (#)
 
Market value of shares or units that have not vested(4) ($)
Robert P. Burrows20,721
 
 26.72
 07/25/2023    
  10,329
 
 29.06
 05/13/2024    
  9,884
 
 30.37
 07/25/2024    
  24,798
 60,249
 20.62
 10/13/2025    
  
 38,133
 21.24
 07/19/2026    
          35,313
 823,146
____________________
(1)
All stock options vest over a four-year period, with 25% of the underlying shares vesting on the one-year anniversary of the grant date and the remaining 75% of the underlying shares vesting over a three-year period thereafter in 1236 as nearly equal as possible quarterlymonthly installments, in each case so long as the individual remains an employee or consultant of our company. If a change in control of our company occurs, all outstanding options become immediately exercisable in full and remain exercisable for the remainder of their terms. For more information, we refer you tosee the discussion under the heading “—“-Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change in Control.
(2)All option awards have a 10-year term, but may terminate earlier if the recipient’s employment or service relationship with our company terminates.
(3)The release dates and release amounts for the unvested stock awards are as follows:

Name

  June 1, 2014   August 28, 2014   June 1, 2015   June 1, 2016   June 1, 2017 

Mr. Mowry

   17,273     —       17,275     12,398     7,068  

Mr. McCormick

   8,384     —       8,385     8,387     3,096  

Mr. Van Ummersen

   5,089     —       6,447     6,447     6,447  

Mr. Epinette

   4,389     3,999     6,389     4,684     2,685  

Mr. Rich

   11,418     —       11,420     4,789     3,138 ��

Name 06/01/2017 06/01/2018 06/01/2019 06/01/2020
Mr. Palmisano 95,998
 95,999
 96,000
 23,584
Mr. Berry 15,441
 15,440
 15,441
 5,290
Mr. Cordell 10,891
 10,891
 10,893
 5,091
Mr. Cooke 8,135
 8,135
 8,135
 2,531
Mr. Burrows 10,665
 10,665
 10,665
 3,318
If a change in control of our company occurs, all issuance conditions on all outstanding stock grantsawards will be deemed satisfied; provided, however, that if any such issuance condition relates to satisfying any performance goal and there is a target for the goal, the issuance or condition will be deemed satisfied generally only to the extent of the stated target.

(4)
The market value of stock grantsawards that had not vested as of December 29, 201325, 2016 is based on the per share closing sale price of our ordinary shares as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market, on the last trading day of our fiscal year, end, December 27, 201323, 2016 ($18.29)23.31), as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

Options Exercised and Stock Vested During Fiscal Year

The table below provides information regarding stock options that were exercised by our named executive officers and stock awards that vested for each of our named executive officers during the fiscal year ended December 29, 2013.

   Option awards(1)   Stock awards(2) 

Name

  Number of shares
acquired
on exercise
(#)
   Value
realized
on exercise
($)
   Number of shares
acquired

on vesting
(#)
   Value
realized on
vesting
($)
 

David H. Mowry

        

Stock options

   —       —        

Restricted stock units

       7,546     119,151  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Shawn T McCormick

        

Stock options

   —       —        

Restricted stock units

       3,662     57,823  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Gordon W. Van Ummersen

        

Stock options

   —       —        

Restricted stock units

       —       —    
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Stéphan Epinette

        

Stock options

   —       —        

Restricted stock units

       3,410     53,844  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Terry M. Rich

        

Stock options

   —       —        

Restricted stock units

       8,281     130,757  

25, 2016. No option awards were exercised by any of our named executive officers during the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016.
  
Stock awards(1)
Name 
Number of shares acquired on vesting
(#)
 
Value realized on vesting
($)
Robert J. Palmisano    
Restricted stock units 72,415
 1,420,782
Lance A. Berry    
Restricted stock units 10,150
 199,143
Kevin D. Cordell    
Restricted stock units 5,800
 113,796
Peter S. Cooke    
Restricted stock units 5,603
 109,931
Robert P. Burrows    

  
Stock awards(1)
Name 
Number of shares acquired on vesting
(#)
 
Value realized on vesting
($)
Restricted stock units 7,347
 144,148
____________________
(1)The number of shares acquired upon exercise reflects the gross number of shares acquired absent netting for shares surrendered to pay the option exercise price and/or satisfy tax withholding requirements. The value realized on exercise represents the gross number of shares acquired on exercise multiplied by the market price of our ordinary shares on the exercise date, as reported by The NASDAQ Global Select Market, less the per share exercise price.
(2)(1)The number of shares acquired upon vesting reflects the gross number of shares acquired absent netting of shares surrendered or sold to satisfy tax withholding requirements. The value realized on vesting of the restricted stock unitRSU awards held by each of the named executive represents the gross number of ordinary shares acquired, multiplied by $15.79 per share, the closing sale price of our ordinary shares as reported by The NASDAQ Global Select Market, on May 31, 2013,the vesting date or the last trading day prior to the vesting date.date if the vesting date was not a trading day, as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

Potential Payments Upon a Termination or Change in Control

Severance Arrangements – Generally

Employment Agreement with Robert J. Palmisano. TornierEffective October 1, 2015, Wright Medical Group, Inc., one of our primary U.S. operatingsubsidiaries, entered into an employment agreement with Robert J. Palmisano, our President and Chief Executive Officer. Under the terms of our employment agreement with Mr. Palmisano, in the event of a termination of his employment, the post-employment pay and benefits, if any, to be received by him will vary according to the basis for his termination. We have guaranteed the obligations under the employment agreement since our subsidiary, Wright Medical Group, Inc., is a party to the agreement. The employment agreement will continue until December 31, 2018, subject to earlier termination under certain circumstances, and commencing on October 1, 2017, will automatically renew for additional one-year periods unless we or Mr. Palmisano provides notice of non-extension of the agreement.
In the event that Mr. Palmisano’s employment is terminated for cause or he terminates his employment other than for “good reason” (as defined in the employment agreement) or disability, we will have no obligations to him, other than payment of accrued obligations. Accrued obligations include: (i) any accrued base salary through the date of termination; (ii) any annual cash incentive compensation awards earned but not yet paid; (iii) the value of any accrued vacation; (iv) reimbursement for any unreimbursed business expenses; and (v) only in the case of a termination at any time by reason of death or disability, his annual target incentive payment for the year that includes the date of termination.
In the event of an involuntary termination of his employment, we will be required to provide him, in addition to his accrued obligations: (i) a lump sum payment equal to two and one-half times the sum of: (a) his then current annual base salary; plus (b) his annual target incentive bonus; (ii) payment or reimbursement for the cost of COBRA continuation coverage for up to 12 months; (iii) outplacement assistance for a period of 12 months, subject to termination if Mr. Palmisano accepts employment with another employer; (iv) financial planning services for a period of 12 months; and (v) an annual physical examination within 12 months of termination.
In the event of a termination of his employment due to death or disability, we will be required to provide him, in addition to his accrued obligations, his annual target incentive bonus.
In the event of an involuntary termination of his employment in anticipation of or within a 24-month period following a “change in control,” we will be required to provide him, in addition to his accrued obligations: (i) a lump sum payment equal to three times the sum of: (a) his then current annual base salary, plus (b) his annual target incentive bonus; (ii) his annual target incentive bonus for the year in which his termination occurs; (iii) payment or reimbursement for the cost of COBRA continuation coverage for up to 12 months; (iv) outplacement assistance for a period of 12 months, subject to termination if Mr. Palmisano accepts employment with another employer; (v) financial planning services for a period of 12 months; and (vi) an annual physical examination within 12 months of termination.
Upon termination for any reason other than for cause, disability, or death, Mr. Palmisano must enter into a release of all claims within 30 days after the date of termination before any payments will be made to him under the employment agreement, other than accrued obligations. If he breaches the terms of the confidentiality, non-competition, non-solicitation, intellectual property rights agreement, then our obligations to make payments or provide benefits will cease immediately and permanently, and he will be required to repay an amount equal to 30% of the post-employment payments and benefits previously provided to him under the employment agreement, with interest. The employment agreement provides for other clawback and forfeiture provisions, including if we are required to restate our financial statements under certain circumstances. All payments under his employment agreement will be net of applicable tax withholding obligations. The agreement also provides that if any severance payments or other payments or benefits deemed made in connection with a future change in control are subject to the “golden parachute” excise tax under Code Section 4999, the payments will be reduced to one dollar less than the amount that would subject him to the excise tax if the reduction results in him receiving a greater amount on a net-after tax basis than would be received if he received the payments and benefits and paid the excise tax.

Severance Pay Agreements with Other Named Executive Officers. Our subsidiary, Wright Medical Group, Inc., has entered into separation pay agreements with each of our named executive officers, exceptother than Mr. Epinette, whichPalmisano. We have guaranteed the obligations under these separation pay agreements. The separation pay agreements providewill continue until October 1, 2018 and, commencing on October 1, 2017, will automatically renew for certain severance protections. additional one-year periods unless we or the executive provides notice of termination of the agreement.
Under such agreements, if the executive’s employmentterms of the separation pay agreement, in the event that the executive is terminated by Tornier, Inc. without “cause” (as such term is defined infor cause or the executive terminates his employment agreements), in addition toother than for good reason or disability, we will have no obligations, other than payment of accrued obligations. Accrued obligations include: (i) any accrued but unpaidbase salary and benefits through the date of termination; (ii) any annual cash incentive compensation awards earned but not yet paid; (iii) the value of any accrued vacation; (iv) reimbursement for any unreimbursed business expenses; and (v) only in the case of a termination at any time by reason of death or disability, an annual incentive target bonus for the year that includes the date of termination, prorated for the portion of the year that the executive will be entitled to base salary and health and welfare benefit continuation for 12 months followingwas employed.
In the event of an involuntary termination and, in the eventof the executive’s employment, is terminated withoutother than for cause, duewe will be obligated to non-renewalpay a severance payment and accrued obligations and provide certain benefits to the executive. The severance payment will equal the sum of (i) the executive’s then current annual base salary, plus (ii) an amount equal to his then current annual target bonus. Half of the total severance payment amount will be payable at or within a reasonable time after the date of termination and the remaining half will be payable in installments beginning six months after the date of termination, with a final installment to be made on or before March 15 of the calendar year following the year of termination. In the event of an involuntary termination of the executive’s employment agreements by Tornier, Inc.,in connection with a change in control, then his severance payment will equal two times the amount of his severance payment as described above. Under the separation pay agreement, an involuntary termination of the executive’s employment will occur if we terminate the executive’s employment other than for cause, disability, voluntary retirement, or death or if the executive resigns for good reason, in each case as defined in the separation pay agreement.
In addition to a severance payment, the executive also will be entitled to a payment equal to his or her pro rata annual bonus forreceive the year of termination.

Tornier SAS, our French operating subsidiary, is a party to an employment agreement with Mr. Epinette, which agreement provides for certain protections. Pursuant to the agreement and French labor laws, Mr. Epinette is entitled to receive certain payments andfollowing benefits following a voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, including an amount equal to 12 months’ gross monthly salary, which is payable as consideration for the restrictive covenants contained in the agreement, a payment equal to Mr. Epinette’s French incentive compensation scheme payment for the year of his termination and, in the caseevent of an involuntary termination of employment,his employment: (i) a severance payment payable pursuant to French law,pro rata portion of the amount of which is determined based on Mr. Epinette’s gross monthly salary and years of service with Tornier SAS. Pursuant to French law, gross monthly salary represents the average salary Mr. Epinette received during the 12-month period preceding his termination and includes the amount of anyexecutive’s annual cash incentive bonus payablecompensation award for the fiscal year that includes the termination date, if earned pursuant to Mr. Epinettethe terms thereof and at such time and in such manner as determined pursuant to the terms thereof, less any payments thereof already made during such period pursuant to ourfiscal year (or, in the event of an involuntary termination in connection with a change in control, a pro rata portion of the executive’s target annual cash incentive bonus program.

Changecompensation award for the fiscal year that includes the termination date, less any payments thereof already made during such fiscal year); (ii) payment or reimbursement for the cost of COBRA continuation coverage for up to 12 months (18 months in Control Arrangements – Generally. Underthe event of an involuntary termination in connection with a change in control); (iii) outplacement assistance for a period of one year (two years in the event of an involuntary termination in connection with a change in control), subject to termination if the executive accepts employment with another employer; (iv) financial planning services for a period of one year (two years in the event of an involuntary termination in connection with a change in control); (v) payment to continue insurance coverage equal to the executive’s annual supplemental insurance premium benefit provided to him or her prior to the date of termination (twice the premium benefit in the event of an involuntary termination in connection with a change in control); (vi) an annual physical examination within 12 months of termination; and (vii) reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses if any such fees or expenses are incurred to recover benefits rightfully owed under the separation pay agreement.

In the event of a termination of an executive’s employment due to death or disability, we will be required to provide the executive, in addition to his or her accrued obligations, a pro rata portion of his or her annual target incentive bonus.
Upon termination for any reason other than cause, disability, or death, the executive must enter into a release of all claims within 30 days after the date of termination before any payments will be made to the executive under the separation pay agreement, other than accrued obligations. If the executive breaches the terms of the employment agreements Tornier Inc. has entered into with Mr. Mowry, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Van Ummersenconfidentiality, non-competition, non-solicitation, and Mr. Rich, inintellectual property rights agreement or the event the executive’s employment is terminated without causerelease, then our obligations to make payments or by the executive for “good reason” (as such term is defined in the employment agreements) within 12 months following a change in control,provide benefits will cease immediately and permanently, and the executive will be required to repay an amount equal 90% of the payments and benefits previously provided to the executive under the separation pay agreement, with interest. The separation pay agreement provides for other clawback and forfeiture provisions, including if we are required to restate our financial statements under certain circumstances. All payments under the separation pay agreement will be net of applicable tax withholding obligations. The separation pay agreement provides that if any severance payments or other payments or benefits deemed made in connection with a future change in control are subject to the “golden parachute” excise tax under Code Section 4999, the payments will be reduced to one dollar less than the amount that would subject the executive to the excise tax if the reduction results in the executive receiving a greater amount on a net-after tax basis than would be received if the executive received the payments and benefits and paid the excise tax.
Retention Agreement with Mr. Cooke. As described earlier, in the beginning of 2016, as part of our merger integration efforts, we asked Mr. Cooke, our President, International to relocate his family to the United Kingdom and build an international headquarters and team. Despite his initial hesitation to do so, Mr. Cooke agreed. To incentivize him to relocate, we entered into a retention letter agreement with him under which we agreed to provide him certain expat relocation and temporary assignment benefits customarily provided to executives in such situations. We also agreed to pay him a $1.2 million retention payment on the second anniversary

of his relocation, subject to his continuing employment through such date and other specified terms and conditions. This retention payment, if made, would be in lieu of any future change in control or severance payment Mr. Cooke otherwise would be entitled to receive accrued but unpaid salary and benefits throughunder his separation pay agreement. If Mr. Cooke voluntarily terminates his employment prior to the date of termination, a lump sum payment equal to his base salary plus target bonus for the year of termination, health and welfare benefit continuation for 12 months following termination and accelerated vesting of all unvested options and stock grants.

Under the terms of the employment agreement between Tornier SAS and Mr. Epinette, if Mr. Epinette is terminated for reasons other than negligence or serious misconduct following a change in control (as such term is defined in the employment agreement), he is entitled to gross monthly salary continuation and health and welfare benefit continuation for 12 months following termination of employment, accelerated vesting of all unvested options, as well as a payment equal to Mr. Epinette’s annual target bonus and French incentive compensation scheme payment for the yearcompletion of his termination. Pursuanttwo-year assignment, he will not receive the retention payment. If we terminate his employment without cause or he terminates his employment for good reason prior to French law, gross monthly salary represents the average salary Mr. Epinette received duringcompletion of his two-year assignment, he will receive the 12-month period preceding his termination and includes the amount of any annual cash incentive bonus payable to Mr. Epinette during such period pursuant to our annual cash incentive bonus program.

retention payment.

Change in Control Provisions in Stock Incentive Plan. In addition to the change in control severance protections provided in Mr. Palmisano’s employment agreement and the employmentseparation pay agreements with our executives, our prior stock option plan and our current stock incentive plan under which stock options and stock grantsRSU awards have been granted to our named executive officers containcontains “change in control” provisions. Under the terms of our prior stock option plan and current stock incentive plan, if there is a change in control of our company, then, all outstanding options become immediately exercisable in full and remain exercisable for the remainder of their terms and all issuance conditions on all outstanding stock grantsRSU awards will be deemed satisfied; provided, however, that if any such issuance condition relates to satisfying any performance goal and there is a target for the goal, the issuance condition will be deemed satisfied generally only to the extent of the stated target. Alternatively, the compensation committee may determine that outstanding awards will be cancelled as of the consummation of the change in control and that holders of cancelled awards will receive a payment in respect of such cancellation based on the amount of per share consideration being paid in connection with the change in control less, in the case of options and other awards subject to exercise, the applicable exercise price.

A “change in control” under our current stock incentive plan means:

the acquisition (other than from Tornier)us) by any person, entity or group, subject to certain exceptions, of 50% or more of either our then-outstanding ordinary shares or the combined voting power of our then-outstanding ordinary shares or the combined voting power of our then-outstanding capital stock entitled to vote generally in the election of directors;

the “continuity directors” cease for any reason to constitute at least a majority of our board of directors;

consummation of a reorganization, merger or consolidation, in each case, with respect to which persons who were our shareholders immediately prior to such reorganization, merger or consolidation do not, immediately thereafter, own more than 50% of the combined voting power entitled to vote generally in the election of directors of the then-outstanding voting securities of the reorganized, merged, consolidated, or other surviving corporation (or its direct or indirect parent corporation);

approval by our shareholders of a liquidation or dissolution of our company; or

the consummation of the sale of all or substantially all of our assets with respect to which persons who were our shareholders immediately prior to such sale do not, immediately thereafter, own more than 50% of the combined voting power entitled to vote generally in the election of directors of the then-outstanding voting securities of the acquiring corporation (or its direct or indirect parent corporation).

The definition of change in control in our prior stock option plan and executive employment agreements is not identical but substantially similar to the definition in our current stock incentive plan.

Potential Payments to Named Executive Officers.The table below reflects the amount of compensation and benefits payable to each named executive officer, in the event of (i) any termination (including for cause) orvoluntary resignation or a voluntary/termination or termination for cause termination;cause; (ii) an involuntary termination without cause; (iii) an involuntary termination without cause or a resignation for good reason within 12 months (24 months in the case of Mr. Palmisano) following a change in control, or a qualifying change in control termination; and (iv) termination by reason of an executive’s death and (v) termination by reason of an executive’sor disability. The amounts shownreported in the table assume that the applicable triggering event occurred on December 29, 2013,25, 2016, and, therefore, are estimates of the amounts that would be paid to the named executive officers upon the occurrence of such triggering event.

      Triggering Events 

Name

  

Type of payment

  Voluntary/
for cause
termination
($)
   Involuntary
termination
without
cause
($)
   Qualifying
change in
control
termination
($)
   Death
($)
   Disability
($)
 

David H. Mowry

  Cash severance(1)   —       450,000     450,000     —       —    
  Benefit continuation(2)   —       13,827     13,827     —       —    
  Target bonus(3)   —       —       355,467     —       —    
  Option award acceleration(4)   —       —       4,016     —       —    
  Stock award acceleration(5)   —       —       987,916     —       —    
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
  

Total

   —       463,827     1,811,226     —       —    
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Shawn T McCormick

  Cash severance(1)   —       354,812     354,812     —       —    
  Benefit continuation(2)   —       13,827     13,827     —       —    
  Target bonus(3)   —       —       177,206     —       —    
  Option award acceleration(4)   —       —       4,105     —       —    
  Stock award acceleration(5)   —       —       516,729     —       —    
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
  

Total

   —       368,639     1,066,679     —       —    
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Gordon W. Van Ummersen

  Cash severance(1)   —       350,000     350,000     —       —    
  Benefit continuation(2)   —       13,827     13,827     —       —    
  Target bonus(3)   —       —       175,000     —       —    
  Option award acceleration(4)   —       —       —       —       —    
  Stock award acceleration(5)   —       —       446,825     —       —    
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
  

Total

   —       363,827     985,652     —       —    
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Stéphan Epinette(6)

  Cash severance   375,307     342,598     750,614     —       375,307  
  Benefit continuation   —       13,827     13,827     —       —    
  Target bonus(7)   22,708     22,708     153,610     22,708     22,708  
  Option award acceleration(4)   —       —       842     —       —    
  Stock award acceleration(5)   —       —       405,050     —       —    
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
  

Total

   398,015     379,133     1,323,943     22,708     398,015  
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Terry M. Rich

  Cash severance(1)   —       359,624     359,624     —       —    
  Benefit continuation(2)   —       13,827     13,827     —       —    
  Target bonus(3)   —       —       269,117     —       —    
  Option award acceleration(4)   —       —       2,483     —       —    
  Stock award acceleration(5)   —       —       562,692     —       —    
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
  

Total

   —       373,451     1,207,743     —       —    

event
.
Name 
Type of payment(1)
 
Voluntary/
for cause
termination
($)
 
Involuntary
termination
without
cause
($)
 
Qualifying
change in
control
termination
($)
 
Death/
disability
($)
Robert J. Palmisano Cash severance 
 4,608,240
 5,529,888
 
  Benefit continuation 
 19,920
 19,920
 
  
Annual bonus(2)
 
 921,648
 921,648
 921,648
  Outplacement benefits 
 30,000
 30,000
 
  
Other termination benefits(3)
 
 6,000
 6,000
 
  
Option award acceleration(4)
 
 
 2,158,369
 
  
RSU award acceleration(5)
 
 
 7,262,953
 
     Total 
 5,585,808
 15,928,778
 921,648
           
Lance A. Berry Cash severance 
 682,110
 1,364,220
 

Name 
Type of payment(1)
 
Voluntary/
for cause
termination
($)
 
Involuntary
termination
without
cause
($)
 
Qualifying
change in
control
termination
($)
 
Death/
disability
($)
  Benefit continuation 
 19,920
 29,880
 
  
Annual bonus(2)
 
 268,710
 268,710
 268,710
  Outplacement benefits 
 30,000
 60,000
 
  
Other termination benefits(3)
 
 6,000
 12,000
 
  
Option award acceleration(4)
 
 
 349,753
 
  
RSU award acceleration(5)
 
 
 1,203,076
 
     Total 
 1,006,740
 3,287,639
 268,710
           
Kevin D. Cordell Cash severance 
 727,584
 1,455,168
 
  Benefit continuation 
 19,920
 29,880
 
  
Annual bonus(2)
 
 272,844
 272,844
 272,844
  Outplacement benefits 
 30,000
 60,000
 
  
Other termination benefits(3)
 
 6,000
 12,000
 
  
Option award acceleration(4)
 
 
 249,073
 
  
RSU award acceleration(5)
 
 
 880,325
 
     Total 
 1,056,348
 2,959,290
 272,844
           
Peter S. Cooke 
Cash severance(6)
 
 1,226,112
 1,226,112
 
  Benefit continuation 
 19,920
 29,880
 
  
Annual bonus(2)
 
 211,200
 211,200
 211,200
  Outplacement benefits 
 30,000
 60,000
 
  
Other termination benefits(3)
 
 6,000
 12,000
 
  
Option award acceleration(4)
 
 
 183,821
 
  
RSU award acceleration(5)
 
 
 627,878
 
     Total 
 1,493,232
 2,350,891
 211,200
           
Robert P. Burrows Cash severance 
 777,908
 1,555,816
 
  Benefit continuation 
 19,920
 29,880
 
  
Annual bonus(2)
 
 259,303
 259,303
 259,303
  Outplacement benefits 
 30,000
 60,000
 
  
Other termination benefits(3)
 
 6,000
 12,000
 
  
Option award acceleration(4)
 
 
 241,005
 
  
RSU award acceleration(5)
 
 
 823,146
 
     Total 
 1,093,131
 2,981,150
 259,303
____________________
(1)RepresentsThe benefit amounts set forth in the value of salary continuation for 12 months ortable do not reflect any reduction that may be necessary to prevent the payment of a lump sum equalfrom being subject to 12-months’ base salary following the executive’s termination, asan excise tax under Code Section 280G, if applicable.
(2)Includes the value of medical, dental and vision benefit continuation for each executive and their family for 12 months following the executive’s termination. With respectAssumes payment equal to a qualifying change in control termination, we will bear the entire cost of coverage.
(3)Includes value of full target annual bonus for the year of the change in control. In the case of all of the named executive officers, other than Mr. Epinette, ifwhich the termination is an involuntary termination without cause and the date of termination is such that the termination is structured as a non-renewal of the executive’s employment agreement, then under such circumstances a pro rata portion of the executive’s annual bonus would be required to be paid under the terms of the executive’s employment agreement.occurs.
(3)Reflects the cost of financial planning services and continued executive insurance. Reimbursement of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses is not included as the amount is not estimable.
(4)The value of the automatic acceleration of the vesting of unvested stock options held by a named executive officer is basedBased on the difference between: (i) the per share market price of ourthe ordinary shares underlying the unvested stock options held by such executive as of December 27, 2013,23, 2016, the last trading day of 2013,fiscal 2016, based upon the per share closing sale price of our ordinary shares on such date ($23.31), as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market, on December 27, 2013 ($18.29), and (ii) the per share exercise price of the options held by such executive. The range of per share exercise pricesprice of all unvested stock options held by our named executive officers included in the table as of December 29, 2013 was $16.98 to $27.31.25, 2016 is $20.62 and $21.24.
(5)The value of the automatic acceleration of the vesting of stock awards held by a named executive officer is basedBased on: (i) the number of unvested stockRSU awards held by such officerexecutive as of December 29, 2013,25, 2016, multiplied by (ii) the per share market price of our ordinary shares as of December 23, 2016, the last trading day of 2013, December 27, 2013fiscal 2016, based upon the per share closing sale price of our ordinary shares on December 23, 2016 ($23.31), as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market, on December 27, 2013 ($18.29).Market.
(6)The foreign currency exchange rate of 1.3277 U.S. dollars for 1 Euro, which reflects an average conversion rate for 2013, was used to calculateRepresents retention payment under Mr. Epinette’s payments and benefits upon termination of employment.Cooke's retention letter agreement.

(7)Includes amounts payable pursuant to the French incentive compensation scheme maintained by Tornier SAS assuming 100% achievement of applicable performance metrics. Pursuant to French law, participants receive their annual incentive payment for the year of their termination of employment for any reason. Upon a qualifying termination following a change in control, Mr. Epinette also will receive his full target annual bonus for the year of the change in control under our corporate performance incentive plan.
(8)Reflects an amount equal to 12 months’ gross monthly salary, which is payable as consideration for the restrictive covenants contained in Mr. Epinette’s employment agreement (the “restrictive covenant consideration”). Pursuant to French law, gross monthly salary represents the average salary Mr. Epinette received during the12-month period preceding his termination and includes the amount of annual incentive bonus payable to Mr. Epinette in 2012 in respect of 2011 performance pursuant to our annual bonus program.
(9)Reflects, in addition to the restrictive covenant consideration described in note (8), an amount equal to one-fifth of Mr. Epinette’s gross monthly salary, multiplied by his number of years of service with Tornier SAS, which is intended to reflect an amount payable pursuant to French law in the event of Mr. Epinette’s involuntary termination of employment. Mr. Epinette will receive these benefits following any involuntary termination of employment, except for a termination involving serious or gross misconduct.
(10)Reflects, in addition to the restrictive covenant consideration described in note (8), an amount equal to 12 months’ gross monthly salary, which is intended to reflect an amount payable pursuant to Mr. Epinette’s employment agreement in the event of an involuntary termination of employment within 12 months following a change in control.


Risk Assessment of Compensation Policies, Practices, and Programs

As a result of our annual assessment on risk in our compensation programs, we concluded that our compensation policies, practices, and programs and related compensation governance structure, work together in a manner so as to encourage our employees, including our named executive officers, to pursue growth strategies that emphasize shareholder value creation, but not to take unnecessary or excessive risks that could threaten the value of our company. As part of our assessment, we noted in particular the following:

annual base salaries for employees are not subject to performance risk and, for most non-executive employees, constitute the largest part of their total compensation;

while performance-based, or at risk, compensation constitutes a significant percentage of the overall total compensation of many of our employees, including in particular our named executive officers, and thereby we believe motivates our employees to help fulfill our corporate mission, vision and values, including specific and focused company performance goals, theexecutives, non-performance based compensation for most employees for most years is alsostill a sufficiently high percentage of their overall total compensation that we dothe performance-based compensation does not believe thatencourage unnecessary or excessive risk taking is encouraged by the performance-based compensation;taking;

for most employees, our performance-based compensation has appropriate maximums;

a significant portion of performance-based compensation of our employees is in the form of long-term equity incentives which do not encourage unnecessary or excessive risk because they generally vest over a three to four-year period of time thereby focusing our employees on our company’s long-term interests; and

performance-based or variable compensation awarded to our employees, which for our higher-level employees, including our named executive officers, constitutes the largest part of their total compensation, is appropriately balanced between annual and long-term performance and cash and equity compensation, and utilizes several different performance measures and goals that are drivers of long-term success for our company and our shareholders.

As a matter of best practice, we will continue to monitor our compensation policies, practices, and programs to ensure that they continue to align the interest of our employees, including in particular our executive officers, with those of our long-term shareholders while avoiding unnecessary or excessive risk.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
Sean D. Carney, John L. Miclot, and Elizabeth H. Weatherman, served as members of the compensation committee of our board of directors during 2016. No member of the compensation committee is or was an officer or employee of ours or any of our subsidiaries while serving on the compensation committee. In addition, no executive officer of ours served during 2016 as a director or a member of the compensation committee of any entity that had an executive officer serving as our director or a member of the compensation committee.
Director Compensation

Overview

Under the terms of our board of directors compensation policy, which was approved by the general meeting of our shareholders on August 26, 2010 and was amended on October 28, 2010, the compensation packages for our non-executive directors are determined by our board ofnon-executive directors, based upon recommendationsa recommendation by the compensation committee. Such compensation is determined by our non-executive directors pursuant to the terms of our articles of association, which provide that if all directors have a conflict of interest in the matter to be acted upon, the matter shall be approved by our non-executive directors. In determining non-executive director compensation, we target such compensation in the market median range of our peer companies; although, we may deviate from the median if we determine necessary or appropriate on a case by casecase-by-case basis.

Under the terms of theour non-executive director compensation policy,program, compensation for our non-executive directors is comprised of both cash compensation and equity-based compensation. Our cashCash compensation is in the form of annual or other retainers for our non-executive directors, chairman, of the board, committee chairs, and committee members. Our equity-basedEquity-based compensation is in the form of initial and annual stock option and stock grants (in the form of restricted stock units)RSU awards). Each of these components is described in more detail below. We do not generally provide perquisites and other personal benefits to our non-executive directors.

During 2013, our

Recent Changes
In October 2016, the compensation committee engaged Mercer to review our non-executive director compensation program. In so doing, Mercer analyzed the outside director compensation levels and practices of our peer companies. Although Mercer used the same peer group of 16 peer companies as was approved by ourthe compensation committee in February 2013 and used to gather compensation information for our executive officers. For more information regarding theofficers for 2016, it was updated to reflect certain changes due to acquisitions and other peer companies, we refer you to the information under the heading “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Determination of Executive Compensation—Use of Peer Group and Other Market Data” of this report.group changes. Based on Mercer’s recommendations, ourthe compensation committee recommended and our board of directors approved certain changes to our non-executive director compensation policy during 2013. In April 2013,program, effective January 1, 2016. These changes include a $15,000 increase in our board of directors approved the following changes to ourannual non-executive director compensation policy effective as of July 1, 2013: (1) anretainer, a $25,000 increase in the cash premium paid tofor our chairman, a $5,000 increase in the premium for the

chair of our audit committee, from $10,000 to $15,000 per year; (2) ana $3,000 increase in the cash premium paid tofor the chair of our compensation committee, from $5,000 to $10,000 per year; (3)and a reduction$35,000 increase in the vesting of initial and annual stock option and stock grants from three years to two years; and (4) a cash travel stipend of $2,000 for each board meeting attended in person that takes place in the Netherlands or other location outside the United States. In addition, in October 2013, our board of directors approved certainequity-based compensation to be paid to the chair and members of our then newly formed strategic transactions committee effective as of November 1, 2013.award. Our non-executive director compensation policy, including as revised,program is consistent with our shareholder-approved board of directors compensation policy.

Cash Compensation

The cash compensation component of our non-executive director compensation consists of gross annual fees, commonly referred to as annual cash retainers, paid to each non-executive director and additional annual cash retainers paid to the chairman and each board committee chair and member.

The table below sets forth the annual cash retainers paid to each non-executive director and the additional annual cash retainers paid to the chairman and each board committee chair and member:

   Annual cash retainer ($) 

Description

  Prior to
July 1, 2013
   Effective
July 1, 2013
 

Non-executive director

   40,000     40,000  

Chairman of the board premium

   50,000     50,000  

Audit committee chair premium

   10,000     15,000  

Compensation committee chair premium

   5,000     10,000  

Nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee chair premium(1)

   5,000     5,000  

Strategic transactions committee chair premium

   —       10,000  

Audit committee member (including chair)

   10,000     10,000  

Compensation committee member (including chair)

   5,000     5,000  

Nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee member (including chair)

   5,000     5,000  

Strategic transactions committee member (including chair)(1)

   —       5,000  

(1)The annual cash retainers for the strategic transactions committee members commenced on November 1, 2013.

board committee member as of during 2016 and that will be paid effective as of January 1, 2017:

  Annual cash retainer ($)
Description 2016 Effective 01/01/2017
Non-executive director 45,000 60,000
Chairman premium 50,000 75,000
Audit committee chair premium 15,000 20,000
Compensation committee chair premium 10,000 13,000
Nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee chair premium 10,000 10,000
Strategic transactions committee chair premium 10,000 10,000
Audit committee member (including chair) 15,000 15,000
Compensation committee member (including chair) 7,000 7,000
Nominating, corporate governance and compliance committee member (including chair) 7,000 7,000
Strategic transactions committee member (including chair) 5,000 5,000
The annual cash retainers are paid on a quarterly basis in arrears within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter. For example, the retainers for the first calendar quarter covering the period from January 1 through March 31 are paid within 30 days of March 31.

Our former interim vice chairman, Kevin C. O’Boyle, received In addition, each non-executive director receives a cash retainertravel stipend of $100,000$2,000 for each board meeting attended in consideration for his services as former interim vice chairman.

person that takes place in the Netherlands or other location outside the United States.

Equity-Based Compensation

The equity-based compensation component of our non-executive director compensation consists of initial stock option and stock grants (in the form of restricted stock units)RSUs awards to new non-executive directors upon their first appointment or election to our board of directors and annual stock option and stock grants (in the form of restricted stock units)RSU awards to all non-executive directors on the same date that annual performance recognition grants of equity awards are made to our employees (or such other date if otherwise in accordance with all applicable, laws, rules and regulations).

employees.

Non-executive directors, upon their initial election to our board of directors and on an annual basis thereafter effective as of the same date that annual performance recognition grants of equity awards are made to our employees, (or such other date if otherwise in accordance with all applicable, laws, rulesreceive a certain dollar amount equal to $160,000 during 2016 and regulations), receive $125,000,$195,000 during 2017, one-half of which is paid in stock options and the remaining one-half of which is paid in stock grants (in the form of restricted stock units).RSU awards. The number of ordinary shares underlying the stock options and stock grantsRSU awards is determined based on the10-trading 10‑trading day average closing sale price of an ordinary share, as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market, and as determined one week prior to the date of anticipated corporate approval of the award. The stock options have a term of 10 years and a per share exercise price equal to 100% of the fair market value of an ordinary share on the grant date. The stock options and stock grants (in the form of restricted stock units) vest over a two-year period, with one-half of the underlying shares vesting on each of the one-year and two-year anniversaries of the grant date, in each case so long as the director is still a director as of such date.

Accordingly, The RSU awards vest in full on August 9, 2013, eachthe one-year anniversary of our non-executive directors receivedthe grant date so long as the director is still a stock option to purchase 7,538 ordinary shares at an exercise pricedirector as of $19.45 per share and a stock grant in the form of a restricted stock unit representing 3,490 shares.

such date.

Election to Receive Equity-Based Compensation in Lieu of Cash Compensation

Our non-executive director compensation policy allows our non-executive directors to elect to receive a stock grantan RSU award in lieu of 100% of their annual cash retainers payable for services to be rendered as a non-executive director, chairman and chair or member of any board committee. Each non-executive director who elects to receive a stock grantan RSU award in lieu of such director’s annual cash retainers is granted a stock grant (in the form of a restricted stock unit)an RSU award under our stock incentive plan for that number of ordinary shares as determined by dividing the aggregate dollar amount of all annual cash retainers anticipated to payable to such director for the period commencing on July 1 of each year to June 30 of the following year by the 10-trading day average closing sale price of our ordinary shares as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market and as determined one week prior to the date of anticipated corporate approval of the award. Four of our non-executive directors elected to receive such a stock grant in lieu of their cash retainers for the period covering July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, and the same four non-executive directors elected to receive such a stock grant in lieu of their cash retainers for the period covering July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. Accordingly,These RSU awards are typically granted effective as of August 10, 2012 and August 9, 2013, these four non-executive directors received stock grants. These stockthe same date that other director equity grants are describedmade and annual performance recognition grants of equity awards are made to our employees. These RSU awards vest in more detail in note (1) tofour equal installments on the Director Compensation Table below.

following September 30th, December 31st, March 31st and June 30th.

If a non-executive director who elected to receive a stock grantan RSU award in lieu of such director’s annual cash retainers is no longer a director before such director’s interest in all of the ordinary shares underlying the stock grantRSU award have vested and become issuable, then such director will forfeit his or her rights to receive all of the shares underling such stock grantRSU award that have not vested and been

issued as of the date such director’s status as a director so terminates. In such case, the non-executive director will receive in cash a pro rata portion of his or her annual cash retainers for the quarter in which the director’s status as a director terminates.

If a non-executive director who elected to receive a stock grantan RSU award in lieu of such director’s annual cash retainers becomes entitled to receive an increased or additional annual cash retainer during the period from July 1 to June 30 of the next year, such director will receive such increased or additional annual cash retainer in cash until July 1 of the next year when the director may elect (on or prior to June 15 of the next year) to receive a stock grantan RSU award in lieu of such director’s annual cash retainers.

If a non-executive director who elected to receive a stock grantan RSU award in lieu of such director’s annual cash retainers experiences a change in the director’s membership on one or more board committees or chair positions prior to June 30 of the next year such that the director becomes entitled to receive annual cash retainers for the period from July 1 to June 30 of the next year aggregating an amount less than the aggregate amount used to calculate the director’s most recent stock grantRSU award received, the director will forfeit as of the effective date of such board committee or chair change his or her rights to receive a pro rata portion of the shares underlying such stock grantRSU award reflecting the decrease in the director’s aggregate annual cash retainers and the date on which such decrease occurred. In addition, the vesting of the stock grantRSU award will be revised appropriately to reflect any such change in the number of shares underlying the stock grantRSU award and the date on which such change occurred.

Summary of Cash and Other Director Compensation

The table below summarizes the compensation received by each individual who served as a non-executive director of our non-executive directors forcompany during the year ended December 29, 2013.25, 2016. While Mr. MowryPalmisano did not receive additional compensation for his service as aexecutive director, a portion of his compensation was allocated to his service as a member of our board of directors.executive director. For more information regarding the allocation of Mr. Mowry’sPalmisano’s compensation, please refer to note (1) to the Summary Compensation Table.

Table under “-Executive Compensation Tables and Narratives-Summary Compensation.”

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION– 2013

Name

  Fees earned
or paid
in cash(1)
($)
   Stock
awards(2)(3)
($)
   Option
awards(4)(5)

($)
   All other
compensation(6)

($)
   Total
($)
 

Sean D. Carney

   113,333     192,787     65,594     4,000     375,714  

Richard B. Emmitt

   50,833     122,184     65,594     4,000     242,611  

Kevin C. O’Boyle

   157,499     67,880     65,594     4,000     294,973  

Alain Tornier

   40,000     111,331     65,594     0     216,925  

Richard F. Wallman

   67,500     67,880     65,594     4,000     204,974  

Elizabeth H. Weatherman

   45,000     116,758     65,594     4,000     231,352  

COMPENSATION- 2016
Name 
Fees earned
or paid
in cash(1)
($)
 
Stock
awards(2)(3)
($)
 
Option
awards(4)(5)
($)
 
All other compensation(6)(7)
($)
 
Total
($)
Gary D. Blackford 60,000
 86,957
 87,012
 8,000
 241,969
Sean D. Carney 69,000
 161,955
 87,012
 6,000
 323,967
John L. Miclot 52,000
 86,957
 87,012
 8,000
 233,969
Kevin C. O’Boyle 60,000
 86,957
 87,012
 6,000
 239,969
Amy S. Paul 62,000
 86,957
 87,012
 6,000
 241,969
David D. Stevens 106,368
 86,957
 87,012
 8,000
 288,337
Richard F. Wallman 79,368
 86,957
 87,012
 8,000
 261,337
Elizabeth H. Weatherman 72,104
 167,392
 87,012
 8,000
 334,508
____________________
(1)Unless a director otherwise elects to convert all of his or her annual retainers into stockRSU awards, (in the form of restricted stock units), annual retainers are paid in cash on a quarterly basis in arrears within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter. FourTwo of our non-executive directors elected to convert all of their annual retainers covering the period of service from July 1, 20122015 to June 30, 20132016 and the same four non-executive directors elected to convert their annual retainers covering the period of service from July 1, 20132016 to June 30, 20142017 into stockRSU awards under our stock incentive plan. Accordingly, these fourtwo non-executive directors were granted stockRSU awards on August 10, 2012October 13, 2015 and August 9, 2013July 19, 2016 for that number of ordinary shares as determined based on the following formula: (a) the aggregate dollar amount of all annual cash retainers that otherwise would have been payable to the non-executive director for services to be rendered as a non-executive director, chairman and chair or member of any board committee (based on such director’s board committee memberships and chair positions as of the grant date), divided by (b) the 10-trading10‑trading day average closing sale price of an ordinary share, as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market, and as determined one week prior to the date of anticipated corporate approval of the award. Such stockRSU awards vest and the underlying shares become issuable in four as nearly equal as possible quarterly installments, on September 30, December 31, March 31 and June 30, in each case so long as the non-executive director is a director of our company as of such date.

The table below sets forth:forth for each non-executive director that elected to convert his or her annual retainers into RSU awards: (a) the number of stockRSU awards granted to each non-executive director on August 9, 2013;July 19, 2016; (b) the total amount of annual retainers converted by such director into stockRSU awards; (c) of such total amount of annual retainers converted into stockRSU awards, the amount attributed to the director’s service during 2013,2016, which amount is included in the “Fees earned or paid in cash” column for each director; (d) the grant date fair value of the stock awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718; and (e) the incremental grant date fair value for the stock awards above and beyond the amount of annual retainers for 20132016 service converted into stockRSU awards computed in

accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 .

Name

  Total amount
of retainers
converted
into stock
awards

($)
   Number of
stock awards
(#)
   Amount of
retainer
converted into
stock awards
attributable to
2013 service

($)
   Grant date fair
value of stock
awards

($)
   Incremental grant
date fair value of
stock awards
received during
2013

($)
 

Mr. Carney

   115,000     6,422     57,500     124,908     67,408  

Mr. Emmitt

   50,000     2,792     25,000     54,304     29,304  

Mr. Tornier

   40,000     2,234     20,000     43,451     23,451  

Ms. Weatherman

   45,000     2,513     22,500     48,878     26,378  

718.

Name 
Total amount of retainers converted into RSU awards
($)
 
Number of
RSU awards
(#)
 
Amount of retainer converted into RSU awards attributable to 2016 service
($)
 
Grant date fair value of RSU awards
($)
 
Incremental grant date fair value of RSU awards received during 2016
($)
Mr. Carney 69,000 3,531 34,500 74,998 40,498
Ms. Weatherman 72,104 3,787 36,052 80,436 44,384
The table below sets forth: (a) the number of stockRSU awards granted to each non-executive director on August 10, 2012;October 13, 2015; (b) the total amount of annual retainers converted by such director into stockRSU awards; (c) of such total amount of annual retainers converted into stockRSU awards, the amount attributed to the director’s service during 2012,2015, which amount is included in the “Fees earned or paid in cash” column for each director; (d) the grant date fair value of the stock awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718; and (e) the incremental grant date fair value for the stock awards above and beyond the amount of annual retainers for 20122015 service converted into stockRSU awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718.

Name

  Total amount
of retainers
converted
into stock
awards

($)
   Number of
stock awards
(#)
   Amount of
retainer
converted into
stock awards
attributable to
2012 service

($)
   Grant date fair
value of stock
awards

($)
   Incremental grant
date fair value of
stock awards
received during
2012

($)
 

Mr. Carney

   110,000     5,186     55,000     93,555     38,555  

Mr. Emmitt

   50,000     2,357     25,000     42,520     17,520  

Mr. Tornier

   40,000     1,886     20,000     34,023     14,023  

Ms. Weatherman

   45,000     2,122     22,500     38,281     15,781  

Name 
Total amount of retainers converted into RSU awards
($)
 
Number of
RSU awards
(#)
 
Amount of retainer converted into RSU awards attributable to 2015 service
($)
 
Grant date fair value of RSU awards
($)
 
Incremental grant date fair value of RSU awards received during 2015
($)
Mr. Carney 81,750 3,891 40,875 80,232 39,357
Ms. Weatherman 55,500 2,642 27,750 54,478 26,728
(2)On August 9, 2013,July 19, 2016, each non-executive director received a stockan RSU award (in the form of a restricted stock unit) for 3,4904,094 ordinary shares granted under our stock incentive plan. The stockRSU award vests and the underlying shares become issuable in two as nearly equal as possible annual installments, on the one-year and two-year anniversariesanniversary of the grant date, and in each caseJuly 19, 2017, so long as the non-executive director is a director of our company as of such date. In addition, as described above in note (1), certaintwo non-executive directors elected to convert their annual retainers covering the period of service from July 1, 20132016 to June 30, 20142017 into stockRSU awards under our stock incentive plan. The amount reported in the “Stock awards” column represents the aggregate grant date fair value for the August 9, 2013 stockJuly 19, 2016 RSU awards granted to each director in 20132016 and for those directors who elected to convert their annual retainers covering the period of service from July 1, 20132016 to June 30, 2014,2017, the incremental grant date fair value for the August 9, 2013 stockadditional July 19, 2016 RSU awards granted to eachsuch director in 2013 above and beyond the amount of annual retainers for 2013 service converted into stock awards,2016, in each case as computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The grant date fair value for stockRSU awards is determined based on the closing sale price of our ordinary shares on the grant date.
(3)The table below provides information regardingAs of December 25, 2016, each non-executive director held the following number of unvested stock awards (all of which are in the form of restricted stock units) held by each of the non-executive directors at December 29, 2013 on a per grant basisRSU awards): Mr. Blackford (4,094); Mr. Carney (6,743); Mr. Miclot (4,094); Mr. O’Boyle (4,094); Ms. Paul (4,094); Mr. Stevens (4,094); Mr. Wallman (4,094); and on an aggregate basis.Ms. Weatherman (6,935).

Name

  05/12/11
grant date
   08/10/12
grant date
   08/09/13
grant date
   Total number
of underlying

unvested
shares
 

Mr. Carney

   990     1,965     8,306     11,261  

Mr. Emmitt

   990     1,965     5,584     8,539  

Mr. O’Boyle

   990     1,965     3,490     6,445  

Mr. Tornier

   990     1,965     5,165     8,120  

Mr. Wallman

   990     1,965     3,490     6,445  

Ms. Weatherman

   990     1,965     5,374     8,329  

(4)On August 9, 2013,July 19, 2016, each non-executive director received a stock option to purchase 7,53811,765 ordinary shares at an exercise price of $19.45$21.24 per share granted under our stock incentive plan. Such option expires on August 9, 2023July 19, 2026 and vests with respect to one-half of the underlying ordinary shares on each of the following dates, so long as the individual remains a director of our company as of such date: August 9, 2014July 19, 2017 and August 9, 2015. AmountJuly 19, 2018. Amounts reported in the “Option awards” column representsrepresent the aggregate grant date fair value for option awards granted to each non-executive director in 20132016 computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The grant date fair value is determined based on our Black-Scholes option pricing model. The grant date value per share for the option granted on August 9, 2013July 19, 2016 was $9.03$7.40 and was determined using the following specific assumptions: risk free interest rate: 1.70%1.125%; expected life: 6.116.08 years; expected volatility: 46.58%34.0%; and expected dividend yield: 0.
(5)The table below provides information regarding the aggregate number of options to purchase our ordinary shares outstanding at December 29, 201325, 2016 and held by each of our non-executive directors:

Name

 Aggregate
number of shares
underlying
options
 
Exercisable/
unexercisable
 
Range of
exercise
price(s) ($)
 
Range of
expiration
date(s)

Mr. Carney

Blackford
 84,63521,786
 67,361/17,274 7,349/14,43715.01-29.06 05/14/2018-07/19/2026
Mr. Carney25,074
7,800/17,27420.62-25.2005/12/2021-07/19/2026
Mr. Miclot115,564
98,290/17,27415.01-29.0603/30/2017-07/19/2026
Mr. O’Boyle100,603
83,329/17,274 18.04-25.20 06/03/2020-07/19/2026
Ms. Paul100,100
82,826/17,27415.01-29.06 05/12/2021-08/09/202314/2018-07/19/2026

Mr. Emmitt

Stevens
 87,21421,786
 69,940/17,274 7,349/14,43718.04-25.2015.01-29.06 05/12/2021-08/09/202317/2017-07/19/2026

Mr. O’Boyle

Wallman
 84,97871,786
 51,099/20,68718.04-25.2006/03/2020-08/09/2023

Mr. Tornier

21,7867,349/14,43718.04-25.2005/12/2021-08/09/2023

Mr. Wallman

56,16141,724/14,43767,704/17,274 16.98-25.20 12/08/2018-07/19/2026
Ms. Weatherman 12/08/2018-08/09/202325,074

Ms. Weatherman


 21,7867,800/17,274 7,349/14,43718.04-25.2020.62-25.20 05/12/2021-08/09/20232021-07/19/2026

(6)Represents travel stipends of $2,000 for each board meeting attended in person that takes place in the Netherlands or other location outside the United States.

(7)We do not generally provide perquisites and other personal benefits to our non-executive directors. Any perquisites or personal benefits actually provided to any non-executive director were less than $10,000 in the aggregate.

ITEM

Item 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

and Related Stockholder Matters.

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners
The table below sets forth certain information concerning the beneficial ownership of our ordinary shares as of February 10, 2014, by:

each of our directors and named executive officers;

all of our current directors and executive officers as a group; and

17, 2017, by each person known by us to beneficially own more than 5% of our ordinary shares.

The calculations in the table below assume that there are [48,508,612]103,625,395 ordinary shares outstanding. Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC. In computing the number of ordinary shares beneficially owned by a person and the percentage ownership of that person, we have included ordinary shares that the person has the right to acquire within 60 days, including through the exercise of any option, warrant or other right, the conversion of any other security, and the issuance of ordinary shares upon the vesting of stock awards granted in the form of restricted stock units. The ordinary shares that a shareholder has the right to acquire within 60 days, however, are not included in the computation of the percentage ownership of any other person.

   Ordinary shares
beneficially owned (1)
 
   Number   Percent 

Directors and named executive officers:

    

David H. Mowry

   50,958     *  

Shawn T McCormick

   18,438     *  

Gordon W. Van Ummersen

   —       —    

Terry M. Rich

   39,158     *  

Stéphan Epinette

   123,809     *  

Sean D. Carney(2)

   15,868,354     32.7

Richard B. Emmitt(3)

   433,972     1.0

Kevin C. O’Boyle

   58,301     *  

Alain Tornier(4)

   2,063,698     4.3

Richard F. Wallman

   93,374     *  

Elizabeth H. Weatherman(5)

   15,861,776     32.7

All directors and executive officers as a group (13 persons)

   18,946,463     38.6

Principal shareholders:

    

Warburg Pincus Entities (TMG Holdings Coöperatief U.A.)(6)

   15,846,809     32.7

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.(7)

   4,555,390     9.3

Class of   
Ordinary shares
beneficially owned
securities Name and address of beneficial owner Number Percent
Ordinary shares 
FMR LLC(1)
 15,494,818 15.0%
Ordinary shares 
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (2)
 12,287,578 11.9%
Ordinary shares 
The Vanguard Group, Inc. (3)
 7,745,958 7.5%
Ordinary shares 
OrbiMed Advisors LLC (4)
 7,584,334 7.3%
Ordinary shares 
Invesco Ltd.(5)
 7,147,734 6.9%
Ordinary shares 
BlackRock, Inc. (6)
 6,629,691 6.4%
____________________
*Represents beneficial ownership of less than 1% of our outstanding ordinary shares.

(1)Based solely on information contained in a Schedule 13G/A of FMR LLC, an investment advisor, filed with the SEC on February 14, 2017, with sole investment discretion with respect to all such shares and sole voting authority with respect to 1,430,114 shares. Abigail P. Johnson is a Director, the Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of FMR LLC. Members of the Johnson family, including Abigail P. Johnson, are the predominant owners, directly or through trusts, of Series B voting common shares of FMR LLC, representing 49% of the voting power of FMR LLC. The Johnson family group and all other Series B shareholders have entered into a shareholders’ voting agreement under which all Series B voting common shares will be voted in accordance with the majority vote of Series B voting common shares. Accordingly, through their ownership of voting common shares and the execution of the shareholders’ voting agreement, members of the Johnson family may be deemed, under the Investment Company Act of 1940, to form a controlling group with respect to FMR. Neither FMR nor Abigail P. Johnson has the sole power to vote or direct the voting of the shares owned directly by the various investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act (“Fidelity Funds”) advised by Fidelity Management & Research Company (“FMR Co”), a wholly owned subsidiary of FMR, which power resides with the Fidelity Funds’ Boards of Trustees. Fidelity Co carries out the voting of the shares under written guidelines established by the Fidelity Funds’ Boards of Trustees. The business address of FMR LLC is 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.
(2)Based solely on information contained in a Schedule 13G/A of T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., an investment advisor, filed with the SEC on February 7, 2017, reflecting beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2016, with sole investment discretion with respect to all such shares, and sole voting authority with respect to 1,669,333 shares. The address of T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. is 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.
(3)Based solely on information contained in a Schedule 13G/A of The Vanguard Group, Inc., an investment adviser, filed with the SEC on February 10, 2017, reflecting beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2016, with sole investment discretion with respect to 7,614,853 shares, sole voting authority with respect to 122,465 shares, shared investment discretion with respect to 131,105 shares and shared voting authority with respect to 13,275 shares. The address of The Vanguard Group, Inc. is 100 Vanguard Boulevard, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355.
(4)Based solely on a Schedule 13G/A filed on February 13, 2017 by OrbiMed Advisors LLC, OrbiMed Capital LLC, and Samuel D. Isaly reflecting beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2016. The beneficial ownership reflected in the table includes 2,456,550 ordinary shares beneficially owned by OrbiMed Advisors LLC with shared voting and investment discretion; 5,127,784 ordinary shares beneficially owned by OrbiMed Capital LLC with shared voting and investment discretion, and 7,584,334 ordinary shares beneficially owned by Samuel D. Isaly with shared voting and investment discretion. The address of their principal business office is 601 Lexington Avenue, 54th Floor, New York, New York 10022
(5)Based solely on information contained in a Schedule 13G/A of Invesco Ltd., a parent holding company, filed with the SEC on February 8, 2017, reflecting beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2016, with sole investment discretion with respect to all such shares and

sole voting authority with respect to 6,655,361 shares. The address of Invesco Ltd. is 1555 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1800, Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
(6)Based solely on information contained in a Schedule 13G of BlackRock, Inc., a parent holding company, filed with the SEC on January 30, 2017, reflecting beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2016, with sole investment discretion with respect to all such shares, and sole voting authority with respect to 6,409,512 shares. The address of BlackRock, Inc. is 55 East 52nd Street, New York, New York 10055.
Security Ownership of Management
The table below sets forth certain information concerning the beneficial ownership of our ordinary shares as of February 17, 2017, by each of our directors and named executive officers and all of our current directors and executive officers as a group.
The calculations in the table below assume that there are 103,625,395 ordinary shares outstanding. Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC. In computing the number of ordinary shares beneficially owned by a person and the percentage ownership of that person, we have included ordinary shares that the person has the right to acquire within 60 days, including through the exercise of any option, warrant or other right, the conversion of any other security, and the issuance of ordinary shares upon the vesting of stock awards granted in the form of restricted stock units. The ordinary shares that a shareholder has the right to acquire within 60 days, however, are not included in the computation of the percentage ownership of any other person.
Class of   
Ordinary shares
beneficially owned(1)
securities Name and address of beneficial owner Number Percent
Ordinary shares Robert J. Palmisano 1,607,778
 1.5%
Ordinary shares Lance A. Berry 217,098
 *
Ordinary shares Kevin D. Cordell 70,130
 *
Ordinary shares Peter S. Cooke 109,996
 *
Ordinary shares Robert P. Burrows 101,678
 *
Ordinary shares David D. Stevens 139,537
 *
Ordinary shares Gary D. Blackford 126,382
 *
Ordinary shares Sean D. Carney 12,285
 *
Ordinary shares John L. Miclot 130,074
 *
Ordinary shares Kevin C. O’Boyle 96,288
 *
Ordinary shares Amy S. Paul 116,074
 *
Ordinary shares Richard F. Wallman 105,236
 *
Ordinary shares Elizabeth H. Weatherman 12,776
 *
Ordinary shares All directors and executive officers as a group (21 persons) 3,563,759
 3.3%
____________________
*Represents beneficial ownership of less than 1% of our outstanding ordinary shares.
(1)
Includes for the persons listed below the following ordinary shares subject to options held by that person that are currently exercisable or become exercisable within 60 days of February 10, 201417, 2017 and ordinary shares issuable upon the vesting of stockRSU awards granted in the form of restricted stock units within 60 days of February 10, 2014:17, 2017:

Name

  Options   Stock awards in the form
of restricted stock units
 

David H. Mowry

   43,433     —    

Shawn T McCormick

   15,991     —    

Gordon W. Ummersen

   —       —    

Terry M. Rich

   33,261     —    

Stéphan Epinette

   118,871     —    

Sean D. Carney

   7,349     1,605  

Richard B. Emmitt

   7,349     698  

Kevin C. O’Boyle

   54,224     —    

Alain Tornier

   7,349     558  

Richard F. Wallman

   41,724     —    

Elizabeth H. Weatherman

   7,349     628  

All directors and executive officers as a group (13 persons)

   511,815     3,489  

(2)Includes 15,846,809 ordinary shares held by affiliates of Warburg Pincus & Co. Mr. Carney is a Partner of Warburg Pincus & Co. and a Member and a Managing Director of Warburg Pincus LLC. All ordinary shares indicated as owned by Mr. Carney are included because of his affiliation with the Warburg Pincus Entities (as defined below). See note (6) below. Mr. Carney disclaims beneficial ownership of all securities that may be deemed to be beneficially owned by the Warburg Pincus Entities, except to the extent of any pecuniary interest therein. Mr. Carney’s address is c/o Warburg Pincus LLC, 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10017.
(3)Includes: (i) 31,003 shares held in Mr. Emmitt’s IRA account, (ii) 402 shares held by Mr. Emmitt’s spouse, (iii) 316 shares held by an IRA account of Mr. Emmitt’s spouse, and (iv) 300,500 shares held by Vertical Fund I, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (VFI), and 39,858 shares held by Vertical Fund II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (VFII). The Vertical Group, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, is the sole general partner of each of VFI and VFII, and The Vertical Group GP, LLC controls The Vertical Group, L.P. Mr. Emmitt is a Member and Manager of The Vertical Group GP, LLC, which controls The Vertical Group, L.P. All ordinary shares indicated as owned by Mr. Emmitt are included because of his affiliation with The Vertical Group, L.P. Mr. Emmitt disclaims beneficial ownership of all securities that may be deemed to be beneficially owned by The Vertical Group, L.P., except to the extent of any indirect pecuniary interest therein.
(4)Includes 2,049,290 ordinary shares held by KCH Oslo AS (KCH Oslo). KCH Stockholm AB wholly owns KCH Oslo, and Mr. Tornier wholly owns KCH Stockholm AB. All ordinary shares indicated as owned by Mr. Tornier are included because of his affiliation with these entities.
(5)Includes 15,846,809 ordinary shares held by affiliates of Warburg Pincus & Co. Ms. Weatherman is a Partner of Warburg Pincus & Co. and a Member and a Managing Director of Warburg Pincus LLC. All ordinary shares indicated as owned by Ms. Weatherman are included because of her affiliation with the Warburg Pincus Entities. See note (6) below. Ms. Weatherman disclaims beneficial ownership of all securities that may be deemed to be beneficially owned by the Warburg Pincus Entities, except to the extent of any pecuniary interest therein. Ms. Weatherman’s address is c/o Warburg Pincus LLC, 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10017.
(6)Reflects ordinary shares held by TMG Holdings Coöperatief U.A., a Dutch coöperatief (TMG). TMG is wholly owned by Warburg Pincus (Bermuda) Private Equity IX, L.P., a Bermuda limited partnership (WP Bermuda IX), and WP (Bermuda) IX PE One Ltd., a Bermuda company (WPIX PE One). The general partner of WP Bermuda IX is Warburg Pincus (Bermuda) Private Equity Ltd., a Bermuda company (WP Bermuda Ltd.). WP Bermuda IX is managed by Warburg Pincus LLC, a New York limited liability company (WP LLC, and together with WP Bermuda IX, WPIX PE One and WP Bermuda Ltd., the Warburg Pincus Entities). Charles R. Kaye and Joseph P. Landy are the Managing General Partners of Warburg Pincus & Co., a New York general partnership (WP), and Managing Members andCo-Chief Executive Officers of WP LLC and may be deemed to control the Warburg Pincus Entities. Each of the Warburg Pincus Entities, Mr. Kaye and Mr. Landy has shared voting and investment control of all of the ordinary shares referenced above. By reason of the provisions of Rule 16a-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Mr. Kaye, Mr. Landy and the Warburg Pincus Entities may be deemed to be the beneficial owners of the ordinary shares held by TMG. Each of Mr. Kaye, Mr. Landy and the Warburg Pincus Entities disclaims beneficial ownership of the ordinary shares referenced above except to the extent of any pecuniary interest therein. The address of the Warburg Pincus entities is 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10017.
(7)Based solely on information contained in a Schedule 13D of T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., an investment advisor, filed with the SEC on February 12, 2014, reflecting beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2013, with sole investment discretion with respect to all such shares, sole voting authority with respect to 529,100 shares and no voting authority with respect to 4,027,290 shares. The address of T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. is 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

Name Options RSU awards
Robert J. Palmisano 1,384,408
 
Lance A. Berry 153,430
 
Kevin D. Cordell 59,790
 
Peter S. Cooke 97,143
 
Robert P. Burrows 72,809
 
David D. Stevens 69,940
 
Gary D. Blackford 67,361
 
Sean D. Carney 7,800
 883
John L. Miclot 98,290
 
Kevin C. O’Boyle 83,329
 
Amy S. Paul 82,826
 

Name Options RSU awards
Richard F. Wallman 49,704
 
Elizabeth H. Weatherman 7,800
 947
All directors and executive officers as a group (21 persons) 2,805,920
 1,830
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

The table below provides information about ourregarding the number of ordinary shares that mayto be issued upon the exercise of outstanding stock options and RSU awards granted under our equity compensation plans and the number of ordinary shares remaining available for future issuance our equity compensation plans as of December 29, 2013.

Plan category

 Number of securities
to be issued upon
exercise of outstanding
options, warrants and
rights
(a)
  Weighted-average
exercise price of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(b)
  Number of securities
remaining available for
future issuance under
equity compensation
plans (excluding
securities
reflected in column (a))
(c)
 

Equity compensation plans approved by security holders

  3,195,521   $19.67    2,435,228  

Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders

  —      —      —    
 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total

  3,195,521   $19.67    2,435,228  
 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

25, 2016.
EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION
Plan category
Number of securities
to be issued upon
exercise of outstanding
options, warrants and rights
(a)
Weighted‑average
exercise price of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(b)
Number of securities
remaining available for
future issuance under
equity compensation
plans (excluding securities
reflected in column (a))
(c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
7,813,930 (1)(2)(3)
$20.80 (4)
1,736,435 (5)
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders
Total
7,813,930 (1)(2)(3)
$20.80 (4)
1,736,435 (5)
____________________
(1)Amount includes ordinary shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options granted under the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan and Tornier N.V. Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan and the Tornier N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan and ordinary shares issuable upon the vesting of stockRSU awards in the form of restricted stock units granted under the TornierWright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan.

(2)Excludes employee stock purchase rights under the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan, which is an amended and restated version of the Tornier N.V. 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended.was approved by our shareholders on June 28, 2016. Under such plan, each eligible employee may purchase ordinary shares at semi-annual intervals on June 30th and December 31st each calendar year at a purchase price per share equal to 85% of the closing sales price per share of our ordinary shares on the last day of the offering period. However the compensation committee of the board of directors determined that the first plan period would be the three months beginning October 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2016. Under the ESPP, the first plan purchase occurred on December 31, 2016 during the 2017 fiscal year.
(3)IncludedExcludes an aggregate of 3,925,412 ordinary shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options granted under legacy Wright equity compensation plans and non-plan inducement option agreements assumed by us in connection with the Wright/Tornier merger. The weighted-average per share exercise price of these assumed stock options as of December 25, 2016 was $22.01. No further grants or awards will be made under these assumed legacy Wright equity compensation plans and non-plan inducement option agreements.
(4)Not included in the weighted-average exercise price calculation are 572,303 stock awards granted in the form of restricted stock units with a weighted-average grant price of $19.54. The weighted-average per share exercise price of all outstanding stock options as of December 29, 2013 and reflected in column (a) was $18.69.1,334,713 RSU awards.
(4)
(5)Amount includes 2,132,8211,233,923 ordinary shares remaining available for future issuance under the TornierWright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan and 302,407502,512 ordinary shares remaining available for future issuance under the TornierWright Medical Group N.V. 2010Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended.Plan. No shares remain available for grant under the Tornier N.V. Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan or any of the legacy Wright equity compensation plans since such plan wasplans have been terminated with respect to future grants upon our initial public offering in February 2011.grants.

ITEM

Item 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions,

We describe below and Director Independence.

Introduction
Below under the heading “-Description ofRelated Party Transactions” is a description of transactions that have occurred since the beginning of our last fiscal year, or any currently proposed transactions, to which we were or are a participant and in which:

the amounts involved exceeded or will exceed $120,000; and

a related person (including any director, director nominee, executive officer, holder of more than 5% of our ordinary shares or any member of their immediate family) had or will have a direct or indirect material interest.

We refer

These transactions are referred to these transactions as “related party transactions.”

Procedures Regarding Approval of Related Party Transactions
As provided in our audit committee charter, all related party transactions are to be reviewed and pre-approved by ourthe audit committee. In determining whether to approve a related party transaction, ourthe audit committee generally will evaluate the transaction in terms of (i) the benefits to us;our company; (ii) the impact on a director’s independence in the event the related person is a director, an immediate family member of a director, or an entity in which a director is a partner, shareholder or executive officer; (iii) the availability of other sources for comparable products or services; (iv) the terms and conditions of the transaction; and (v) the terms available to unrelated third parties or to employees generally. OurThe audit committee will then document its findings and conclusions in written minutes. In the event a transaction relates to a member of ourthe audit committee, that member will not participate in the audit committee’s deliberations.

Description of Related Party Transactions
The following persons and entities that participated in the transactions described in this section were related persons at the time of the transaction:

Alain Tornier and Related Entities. Alain Tornier is a member of our board of directors. Mr. Tornier wholly owns KCH Stockholm AB, which wholly owns KCH Oslo AS, which holds approximately 4.2% of our outstanding ordinary shares as of February 20, 2014.

TMG Holdings Coöperatief U.A., Warburg Pincus (Bermuda) Private Equity IX, L.P., Sean D. Carney and Elizabeth H. Weatherman. TMG Holdings Coöperatief U.A., or TMG, holds approximately 32.7% is a former shareholder. Two of our outstanding ordinary shares as of February 20, 2014. Our directors were affiliated with TMG. Sean D. Carney and Elizabeth H. Weatherman are former Managing Directors of Warburg Pincus LLC, which manages TMG as well as its parent entities Warburg Pincus (Bermuda) Private Equity IX, L.P., or WP Bermuda, WP (Bermuda) IX PE One Ltd. and Warburg Pincus (Bermuda) Private Equity Ltd., or WPPE. (“WPPE”). Furthermore, Mr. Carney and Ms. Weatherman are former Partners of Warburg Pincus & Co., the sole member of WPPE.

Vertical Fund I, L.P., Vertical Fund II, L.P. and Richard B. Emmitt. Richard B. Emmitt, a member of our board of directors, is a Member and Manager of The Vertical Group, L.P., which is the sole general partner of each of Vertical Fund I, L.P. and Vertical Fund II, L.P. Mr. Emmitt is also a Member and Manager of The Vertical Group GP, LLC, which controls The Vertical Group, L.P.

We arewere party to a securityholders’ agreement with certain of our shareholders, including TMG WP Bermuda, Vertical Fund I, L.P., Vertical Fund II, L.P., KCH Stockholm AB and Mr. Tornier. Under director nomination provisions of this agreement,under which TMG hashad the right to designate three directors to be nominated to our board of directors for so long as TMG beneficially ownsowned at least 25% of our outstanding ordinary shares, two directors for so long as TMG beneficially ownsowned at least 10% but less than 25% of our outstanding ordinary shares and one director for so long as TMG beneficially ownsowned at least 5% but less than 10% of our outstanding ordinary shares. We agreed to use our reasonable best efforts to cause the TMG designees to be elected as directors. TMG holds approximately 32.7% of our outstanding ordinary shares as of February 20, 2014. Mr. Carney and Ms. Weatherman and Mr. Emmitt are the current directors who areserved as designees of TMG. The securityholders’ agreement terminatesterminated by its terms in May 2016 upon the written consentsale by TMG of all parties to the agreement.

its entire ownership interest in our company.

We arealso were a party to a registration rights agreement with certain of our shareholders, including entities affiliated with certain of our directors, including TMG Vertical Fund I, L.P., Vertical Fund II, L.P. and KCH Stockholm AB.which also terminated by its terms in May 2016. Pursuant to the registration rights agreement, we have agreed to (i) use our reasonable best efforts to effect up to three registered offerings of at least $10 million each upon a demand of TMG or its affiliates, and one registered offering of at least $10 million upon a demand of Vertical Fund I, L.P. or Vertical Fund II, L.P., (ii) use our reasonable best efforts to become eligible for use of Form S-3 for registration statements and once we become eligible TMG or its affiliates shall have the right to demand an unlimited number of registrations of at least $10 million each on Form S-3 and (iii) maintain the effectiveness of each such registration statement for a period of 120 days or until the distribution of the registrable securities pursuant to the registration statement is complete. We have also had granted certain incidental or “piggyback” registration rights with respect to the registrable shares, subject to certain limitations and restrictions, including volume and marketing restrictions imposed by the underwriters of the offering with respect to which the rights are exercised. Under the registration rights agreement, we have agreed to bear the expenses, including the fees and disbursements of one legal counsel for the holders, in connection with the registration of the registrable securities, except for any underwriting commissions relating to the sale of the registrable securities.

On May 15, 2013, we completed an underwritten public offering of our ordinary shares pursuant to which TMG, Vertical Fund I, L.P. and Vertical Fund II, L.P. participated and sold an aggregate of 2,875,000 ordinary shares in addition to the 5,175,000 shares sold by us at a per share price of $16.15. Pursuant to the terms of the registration rights agreement described above, we paid substantially all of the expenses in connection with the offering, other than underwriting commissions, which equaled approximately $560,000.

On February 9, 2007, we signed an exclusive, worldwide license and supply agreement with Tepha for its poly-4-hydroxybutyrate polymer for a license fee of $110,000, plus an additional $750,000 as consideration for certain research and development. Tepha is further entitled to royalties of up to 5% of sales under these licenses. We amended this agreement in December 2011 to include certain additional rights and an option to license additional products. We paid $0.1 million of minimum royalty payments during 2013 to Tepha under the terms of this agreement. Additionally, we made payments of $0.5 million during 2013 related to the purchase of materials. Vertical Fund I, L.P. and Vertical Fund II, L.P. in the aggregate own approximately 20% of Tepha’s outstanding common and preferred stock. In addition, Mr. Emmitt serves on Tepha’s board of directors.

On January 22, 2008, we signed an agreement with BioSET to develop, commercialize and distribute products incorporating BioSET’s F2A synthetic growth factor technology in the field of orthopaedic and podiatric soft tissue repair. As amended on February 10, 2010, this agreement granted us an option to purchase an exclusive, worldwide license for such products in consideration for a payment of $1.0 million. We exercised this option on February 10, 2010. Upon FDA approval of certain products, an additional $2.5 million will become due. BioSET is entitled to royalties of up to 6% for sales of products under this agreement. We have not accrued or paid any royalties under the terms of this agreement. Vertical Fund I, L.P. and Vertical Fund II, L.P. in the aggregate own approximately 20% of BioSET’s outstanding capital stock.

On July 29, 2008, we formed a real estate holding company, SCI Calyx, together with Mr. Tornier. SCI Calyx is owned 51% by us and 49% by Mr. Tornier. SCI Calyx was initially capitalized by a contribution of capital of €10,000 funded 51% by us and 49% by Mr. Tornier. SCI Calyx then acquired a combined manufacturing and office facility in Montbonnot, France, for approximately $6.1 million. The manufacturing and office facility is used to support the manufacture of certain of our current products and house certain of our operations in Montbonnot, France. This real estate purchase was funded through mortgage borrowings of $4.1 million and $2.0 million cash borrowed from the two current shareholders of SCI Calyx. The $2.0 million cash borrowed from the SCI Calyx shareholders originally consisted of a $1.0 million note due to Mr. Tornier and a $1.0 million note due to Tornier SAS, which is our wholly owned French operating subsidiary. Both of the notes issued by SCI Calyx bear interest at the three-month Euro Libor rate plus 0.5% and have no stated term. During 2010, SCI Calyx borrowed approximately $1.4 million from Mr. Tornier in order to fund on-going leasehold improvements necessary to prepare the Montbonnot facility for its intended use. This cash was borrowed under the same terms as the original notes. As of December 29, 2013, SCI Calyx hadrelated-party debt outstanding to Mr. Tornier of $2.3 million. The SCI Calyx entity is consolidated by us, and the related real estate and liabilities are included in our consolidated balance sheets. On September 3, 2008, Tornier SAS, our French operating subsidiary, entered into a lease agreement with SCI Calyx relating to these facilities. The agreement, which terminates in 2018, provides for an annual rent payment of €440,000, which has subsequently been increased and is currently €904,908. As of December 29, 2013, future minimum payments under this lease were €4.3 million in the aggregate.

On December 29, 2007, Tornier SAS entered into a lease agreement with Animus SCI, relating to our facilities in Montbonnot Saint Martin, France. On August 18, 2012, the parties amended the lease agreement to extend the term until May 31, 2022 and reduce the annual rent. The amended agreement provides for an initial annual rent payment of €279,506 annually, which was subsequently increased to €288,564. Animus SCI is wholly owned by Mr. Tornier. On February 6, 2008, Tornier SAS entered into a lease agreement with Balux SCI, effective as of May 22, 2006, relating to our facilities in Montbonnot Saint Martin, France. On August 18, 2012, the parties amended the lease agreement to extend the term until May 31, 2022 and reduce the annual rent. The amended agreement provides for an initial annual rent payment of €252,545, which was subsequently increased to €548,465. Balux SCI is wholly owned by Mr. Tornier and his sister, Colette Tornier. As of December 29, 2013, future minimum payments under all of these agreements were €0.8 million in the aggregate.

Director Independence

The information regarding director independence is disclosed in “Part III—Part III - Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance—GovernanceBoard Structure and Composition”Composition and in “Part III—Part III - Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance—GovernanceBoard Committees”Committees of this report.

ITEM

Item 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES

OurPrincipal Accounting Fees and Services.

Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firms
The audit committee pre-approves all auditof our board of directors is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, and permissible non-audit services to be provided to us byoversight of our independent auditor or independent registered public accounting firm prior to commencementfirm. Our general meeting of services. Our audit committee chairman hasshareholders is directly responsible for the delegated authority to pre-approve such services up to a specified aggregate fee amount. These pre-approval decisions are presented toappointment of the full audit committee at its next scheduled meeting.

auditor audits our Dutch statutory annual accounts prepared in accordance with Dutch law each year.


Audit, Audit-Related, Tax, and All Other Fees
The following table shows the fees that we or legacy Wright paid or accrued for audit and other services provided by our current independent registered public accounting firm, KPMG LLP, for 2016 and 2015:
Fees 2016 2015
Audit fees $2,400,253
 $2,009,760
Audit-related fees 43,000
 41,000
Tax fees 265,000
 15,000
All other fees 120,000
 350,000
Total $2,828,253
 $2,415,760
The following table shows the fees that we or legacy Tornier paid or accrued for audit and other services provided by our former independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP, for 2013 and 2012:

Fees

  2013   2012 

Audit fees

  $1,454,920    $1,467,055  

Audit-related fees

   —       113,060  

Tax fees

   —       84,015  

All other fees

   1,995     3,285  
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

  $1,456,915    $1,667,415  
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

2015:

Fees 2015
Audit fees $461,000
Total $461,000
In the above table, in accordance with the SEC’s definitions and rules, “audit fees” are fees for professional services for the audit of our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K, and the review of our consolidated financial statements included in quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and registration statements and for services that are normally provided by our independent registered public accounting firm in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements;“audit-related “audit-related fees” are fees for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of our consolidated financial statements and are not included in “audit fees” and include fees for services performed related to audits on our benefit plan and due diligence on acquisitions.; “tax fees” are fees for tax compliance and consultation primarily related to assistance with international tax compliance and tax audits, tax advice on acquisitions, and tax planning; and “all other fees” are fees for any services not included in the first three categories.

categories, which includes fees for a risk management review and assessment.

Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures
In addition to retaining KPMG LLP to audit our consolidated financial statements for 2017, the audit committee retained KPMG LLP to provide other auditing and advisory services in 2017. The audit committee understands the need for our independent registered public accounting firm to maintain objectivity and independence in its audits of our consolidated financial statements. The audit committee has reviewed all non-audit services provided by KPMG LLP in 2016 and has concluded that the provision of such services was compatible with maintaining KPMG LLP’s independence in the conduct of its auditing functions.
To help ensure the independence of the independent auditor, the audit committee pre-approves all audit and permissible non-audit services to be provided to us by our independent registered public accounting firm prior to commencement of services. Our audit committee chairman has the delegated authority to pre-approve such services up to a specified aggregate fee amount. These pre-approval decisions are presented to the full audit committee at its next scheduled meeting.
Change in Independent Registered Public Accounting Firms
At our Annual General Meeting held on June 18, 2016, our shareholders ratified the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 25, 2016. Similarly, at the Annual General Meeting, our shareholders appointed KPMG N.V. to serve as our auditor who will audit our Dutch statutory annual accounts to be prepared in accordance with Dutch law for the year ending December 25, 2016. KPMG LLP has served as legacy Wright’s independent registered public accounting firm since 2002.
On December 3, 2015, the audit committee of our board of directors formally dismissed Ernst & Young LLP and engaged KPMG LLP, as our independent registered public accounting firm. In addition, on December 3, 2015, the audit committee of our board of directors formally dismissed E&Y Accountants LLP and engaged KPMG N.V. as our auditor who will audit our Dutch statutory annual accounts to be prepared in accordance with Dutch law for the year ending December 25, 2016.

PART IV


ITEM

Item 15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

Financial Statements

Our consolidated financial statements are included

See Index to Consolidated Financial Statements in “Part II—Item“Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of PartData.”
Financial Statement Schedules
See Schedule II — Valuation and Qualifying Accounts on page S-1 of this report.

Financial Statement Schedules

The following financial statement schedule is provided below: Schedule II—Valuation and Qualifying Accounts. All other schedules are omitted because the required information is inapplicable or the information is presented in the consolidated financial statements or related notes.

Tornier N.V.

Schedule II-Valuation and Qualifying Accounts

(In thousands)

      Additions    
   

Balance at

beginning

  Charged to
costs &
  Deductions  Balance at
end
 

Description

  of period  expenses  Describe(a)   Describe(b)  of period 

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts:

       

Year ended December 29, 2013

  $(4,846  (1,220  1,208     (222 $(5,080
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

Year ended December 30, 2012

  $(2,486  (2,355  87     (92 $(4,846
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

Year ended January 1, 2012

  $(2,519 $(775 $755    $53   $(2,486
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

(a)Uncollectible amounts written off, net of recoveries.
(b)Effect of changes in foreign exchange rates.

Exhibits

The exhibits to this report are listed on an Exhibit Index, which follows the signature page to this report. A copy of any of the exhibits will be furnished at a reasonable cost, upon receipt of a written request for any such exhibit. Such request should be sent to Kevin M. Klemz,James A. Lightman, Senior Vice President, Chief Legal OfficerGeneral Counsel and Secretary, Tornier, Inc.Wright Medical Group N.V., 10801 Nesbitt Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota 55437.Prins Bernhardplein 200, 1097 JB Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The Exhibit Index indicates each management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed as an exhibit to this report.



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

February 23, 2017

Dated: February 21, 2014

TORNIERWRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.
By:  /s/ Robert J. Palmisano
Robert J. Palmisano
 By

/s/ David H. Mowry

David H. Mowry
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
By/s/ Shawn T McCormick

Shawn T McCormick
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Name

Signature
 

Title

 

Date

/s/ DAVID H. MOWRY

 

/s/ Robert J. Palmisano
Robert J. Palmisano
President, and Chief Executive Officer

and Executive Director

(principal executive officer)

Principal Executive Officer)
 February 21, 201423, 2017
David H. Mowry  

/s/ SHAWN T MCCORMICK

Lance A. Berry
Lance A. Berry
 

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial and accounting officer)

Principal Financial Officer )
 February 21, 201423, 2017
Shawn T McCormick  

/s/ SEAN D. CARNEY

Julie B. Andrews
Julie B. Andrews
 Chairman of the Board
Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer )
 February 21, 201423, 2017
Sean D. Carney  

/s/ RICHARD B. EMMITT

David D. Stevens
David D. Stevens
 DirectorChairman February 21, 201423, 2017
Richard B. Emmitt  

/s/ KEVIN C. O’BOYLE

Gary D. Blackford
Gary D. Blackford
 Non-Executive Director February 21, 201423, 2017
Kevin C. O’Boyle  

/s/ ALAIN TORNIER

Sean D. Carney
Sean D. Carney
 Non-Executive Director February 21, 201423, 2017
Alain Tornier  

/s/ RICHARDF. WALLMAN

John L. Miclot
John L. Miclot
 
Non-Executive Director
 February 21, 201423, 2017
Richard F. Wallman  

/s/ ELIZABETH H. WEATHERMAN

Kevin C. O'Boyle
Kevin C. O'Boyle
 
Non-Executive Director

 February 21, 201423, 2017
/s/ Amy S. Paul
Amy S. Paul
Non-Executive Director 
February 23, 2017
/s/ Richard F. Wallman
Richard F. Wallman
Non-Executive Director 
February 23, 2017
/s/ Elizabeth H. Weatherman
Elizabeth H. Weatherman
 
Non-Executive Director 
 February 23, 2017

TORNIER






WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V.

EXHIBIT INDEX TO ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM10-K

10‑K

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 29, 2013

25, 2016

Exhibit No.

 

Exhibit

 

Method of Filing

2.1

 Business Sale Agreement dated October 21, 2016 between Tornier SAS, Corin France SAS, Corin Orthopaedics Holdings Limited and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 23, 2012, by and among Tornier N.V., Oscar Acquisition Corp., OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc. and the Representative*Certain Related Entities Party Thereto* Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Tornier’sthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on AugustOctober 24, 20122016 (File No. 001-35065)

3.1

2.2
 ArticlesAgreement and Plan of AssociationMerger dated as of October 27, 2014 among Tornier N.V., Trooper Holdings Inc., Trooper Merger Sub Inc. and Wright Medical Group, Inc.* Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.12.1 to Tornier’sthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014 (File No. 001-35065)
2.3Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of January 30, 2014 among Wright Medical Group, Inc., WMMS, LLC, OrthoPro, L.L.C. and OP CHA, Inc., as Company Holders’ Agent*Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2014 (File No. 001-35823)
2.4Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of January 30, 2014 among Wright Medical Group, Inc., Winter Solstice LLC, Solana Surgical, LLC, and Alan Taylor, as Members’ Representative*Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.2 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2014 (File No. 001-35823)
2.5Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of June 18, 2013 among MicroPort Medical B.V., MicroPort Scientific Corporation and Wright Medical Group, Inc.*Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28,21, 2013 (File No. 001-35065)001-35823)

4.1

2.6
 Registration Rights Agreement and Plan of Merger dated July 16, 2010, byas of November 19, 2012 among BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc., Wright Medical Group, Inc., Achilles Merger Subsidiary, Inc. and among the investors on Schedule I thereto, the persons listed on Schedule II thereto and Tornier B.V.Achilles Acquisition Subsidiary, LLC* Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.22.1 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 2 to Registration StatementWright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form S-18-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2010 (RegistrationNovember 19, 2012 (File No. 333-167370)001-32883)

4.2

3.1
 Amendment and Waiver to Registration Rights Agreement, dated asArticles of July 16, 2010, by and among the Investors and TornierAssociation of Wright Medical Group N.V. Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.43.2 to Tornier’s Registration Statementthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form S-38-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2012 (RegistrationJuly 1, 2016 (File No. 333-184461)001-35065)

10.1

4.1
 Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, effectiveIndenture dated as of February 21, 2013, byMay 20, 2016 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and between Tornier, Inc. and David H. Mowry**The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (including the Form of the 2.25% Cash Convertible Senior Note due 2021) Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.14.1 to Tornier’sthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)
4.2Indenture dated as of February 13, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (including the Form of the 2.00% Cash Convertible Senior Note due 2020)Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 201313, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
4.3Supplemental Indenture dated as of November 24, 2015 among Wright Medical Group, Inc., Wright Medical Group N.V., as Guarantor, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as TrusteeIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
4.4Contingent Value Rights Agreement dated as of March 1, 2013 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLCIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2013 (File No. 001-32883)

10.2

Exhibit No.
 EmploymentExhibitMethod of Filing
4.5Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated September 4, 2012,as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc., Wright Medical Group N.V. and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, as TrusteeIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form 8-A as filed with the Securities and between Tornier, Inc.Exchange Commission on October 1, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.1Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Shawn T McCormick*Restated 2010 Incentive Plan**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 19, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.2Form of Option Certificate under the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan Representing Stock Options Granted to Executive Officers**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.3Form of Stock Grant Certificate (in the Form of a Restricted Stock Unit) under the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan Representing Restricted Stock Units Granted to Executive Officers**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.4Form of Stock Grant Certificate (in the Form of a Restricted Stock Unit) under the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan Representing Restricted Stock Units Granted to New Executive Officers**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.5Form of Option Certificate under the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan Representing Stock Options Granted to Robert J. Palmisano** Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Tornier’s Annualthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 10-K for8-K as filed with the fiscal year ended December 30, 2012Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)

10.3

10.6
 Employment Agreement, dated March 12, 2012,Form of Stock Grant Certificate (in the Form of a Restricted Stock Unit) under the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan Representing Restricted Stock Units Granted to Robert J. Palmisano**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and between Tornier, Inc.Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.7Form of Option Certificate under the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Terry M. Rich*Restated 2010 Incentive Plan Representing Stock Options Granted to Non-Executive Directors**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.8Form of Stock Grant Certificate (in the Form of a Restricted Stock Unit) under the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan Representing Restricted Stock Units Granted to Non-Executive Directors**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.9Form of Stock Grant Certificate (in the Form of a Restricted Stock Unit) under the Wright Medical Group N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan Representing Restricted Stock Units Granted to Non-Executive Directors in Lieu of Cash Retainers** Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to Tornier’s Annualthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2012 (File No. 001-35065)

10.4

Permanent Employment Contract, dated August 29, 2008, by and between Tornier, SAS and Stéphan Epinette**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Tornier’s Registration Statement on Form S-18-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2010 (RegistrationOctober 16, 2015 (File No. 333-167370)001-35065)

10.5

Employment Agreement, dated June 10, 2013, by and between Tornier, Inc. and Gordon Van Ummersen**Filed herewith

10.6

10.10
 Tornier N.V. Amended and Restated 2010 Incentive Plan** Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Tornier’sthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 201219, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)

10.7

Rules for the Grant of Qualified Stock Options to Participants in France under the Tornier N.V. 2010 Incentive Plan**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Tornier’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 3, 2011 (File No. 001-35065)


Exhibit No.

Exhibit

Method of Filing

10.8

Rules for the Grant of Stock Grants in the Form of Qualified Restricted Stock Units to Grantees in France under the Tornier N.V. 2010 Incentive Plan**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Tornier’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 3, 2011 (File No. 001-35065)

10.9

10.11
 Form of Option Certificate under the Tornier N.V. 2010 Incentive Plan** Filed herewithIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2013 (File No. 001-35065)

10.10

Form of Stock Grant Certificate (in the form of a Restricted Stock Unit) under the Tornier N.V. 2010 Incentive Plan**Filed herewith

10.11

Exhibit No.
ExhibitMethod of Filing
10.12 Tornier N.V. Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan** Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.910.10 to Tornier’sthe Registrant’s Amendment No. 9 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 18, 2011 (Registration No. 333-167370)

10.12

10.13
 Form of Option Agreement under the Tornier N.V. Stock Option Plan for Directors and Officers** Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to Tornier’sthe Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2010 (Registration No. 333-167370)

10.13

10.14
 Tornier N.V. 2010 EmployeeWright Medical Group, Inc. Second Amended and Restated 2009 Equity Incentive Plan**Incorporated by reference to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Definitive Proxy Statement as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2013 (File No. 001-35823)
10.15Form of Executive Stock PurchaseOption Agreement under the Wright Medical Group, Inc. Second Amended and Restated 2009 Equity Incentive Plan** Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4210.4 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 9 to Registration StatementWright Medical Group, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form S-110-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (File No. 001-32883)
10.16Form of Non-Employee Director Stock Option Agreement under the Wright Medical Group, Inc. Second Amended and Restated 2009 Equity Incentive Plan**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (File No. 001-32883)
10.17Wright Medical Group, Inc. Fifth Amended and Restated 1999 Equity Incentive Plan**Incorporated by reference to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Definitive Proxy Statement as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 18, 2011 (RegistrationApril 14, 2008 (File No. 333-167370)001-32883)

10.14

10.18
 First Amendment to the Wright Medical Group, Inc. Fifth Amended and Restated 1999 Equity Incentive Plan**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2008 (File No. 001-32883)
10.19Form of Executive Stock Option Agreement under the TornierWright Medical Group, Inc. Fifth Amended and Restated 1999 Equity Incentive Plan**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 (File No. 001-32883)
10.20Form of Non-Employee Director Stock Option Agreement under the Wright Medical Group, Inc. Fifth Amended and Restated 1999 Equity Incentive Plan**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.15 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 (File No. 001-32883)
10.21Wright Medical Group N.V. 2010Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan** Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Tornier’s Quarterlythe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 10-Q for8-K as filed with the fiscal quarter ended October 2, 2011Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)

10.15

10.22
 TornierWright Medical Group N.V. Corporate Performance Incentive Plan**Filed herewith

10.16

Retraite Supplémentaire maintained by Tornier SAS** Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1010.1 to Tornier’s Registration Statementthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form S-18-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2010 (RegistrationOctober 16, 2015 (File No. 333-167370)001-35065)

10.17

10.23
 Form of Indemnification Agreement** Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4010.1 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statementthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form S-18-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.24Service Agreement effective as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and Robert J. Palmisano**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.25Employment Agreement effective as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Robert J. Palmisano**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)

Exhibit No.ExhibitMethod of Filing
10.26Guaranty by Wright Medical Group N.V. effective as of October 1, 2015 with respect to Wright Medical Group, Inc. Obligations under Employment Agreement with Robert J. Palmisano**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.27Confidentiality, Non-Competition, Non-Solicitation and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement effective as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Robert J. Palmisano**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.28Inducement Stock Option Grant Agreement dated as of September 17, 2011 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Robert J. Palmisano**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2010 (Registration22, 2011 (File No. 333-167370)001-32883)

10.18

10.29
 ContributionConfidentiality, Non-Competition, Non-Solicitation and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement dated March 26, 2010, byeffective as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and between Tornier B.V., Vertical Fund I, L.P., Vertical Fund II, L.P., TMG Holdings Coöperatief U.A., Stichting Administratiekantoor Tornier, Fred B. Dinger III and Douglas W. KohrsLance A. Berry** Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1510.16 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statementthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form S-18-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2010 (RegistrationOctober 16, 2015 (File No. 333-167370)001-35065)
10.30Separation Pay Agreement effective as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Lance A. Berry**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.20 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.31Confidentiality, Non-Competition, Non-Solicitation and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement effective as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Kevin D. Cordell**Filed herewith
10.32Separation Pay Agreement effective as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Kevin D. Cordell**Filed herewith
10.33Confidentiality, Non-Competition, Non-Solicitation and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement dated as of August 1, 2014 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Robert P. Burrows**Filed herewith
10.34Separation Pay Agreement effective as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Robert P. Burrows**Filed herewith
10.35Confidentiality, Non-Competition, Non-Solicitation and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement effective as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Peter S. Cooke**Filed herewith
10.36Separation Pay Agreement effective as of October 1, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Peter S. Cooke**Filed herewith
10.37Letter of Agreement dated as of June 8, 2016 regarding Assignment Offer and Assignment and Relocation Benefit Policy between Wright Medical Technology, Inc. and Peter S. Cooke**Filed herewith
10.38Letter of Agreement dated as of June 8, 2016 between Wright Medical Technology, Inc. and Peter S. Cooke**Filed herewith

10.19

Exhibit No.
ExhibitMethod of Filing
10.39Form of Guaranty by Wright Medical Group N.V. with respect to Wright Medical Group, Inc. or Tornier, Inc. Obligations under Separation Pay Agreements with Executive Officers**Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.40Credit, Security and Guaranty Agreement dated as of December 23, 2016 among Wright Medical Group N.V. (as Guarantor), Wright Medical Group, Inc. (as Borrower), Certain Other Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries Listed on the Signature Pages Thereto (each as Borrower), Midcap Financial Trust (as Lender and Agent) and the Financial Institutions or Other Entities Parties TheretoIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)
10.41Form of Exchange/Subscription Agreement dated as of May 12, 2016 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and Each Investor Party TheretoIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)
10.42Form of Subscription Agreement dated as of May 12, 2016 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and Each Investor Party TheretoIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)
10.43Call Option Transaction Confirmation dated as of May 12, 2016 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 26, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)
10.44Call Option Transaction Confirmation dated as of May 12, 2016 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and Bank of America, N.A.Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 26, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)
10.45Warrants Confirmation dated as of May 12, 2016 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 26, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)
10.46Warrants Confirmation dated as of May 12, 2016 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and Bank of America, N.A.Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 26, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)
10.47Base Call Option Transaction Confirmation dated as of February 9, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG, London BranchIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.48Base Call Option Transaction Confirmation dated as of February 9, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.49Base Call Option Transaction Confirmation dated as of February 9, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.50Base Warrants Confirmation dated as of February 9, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG, London BranchIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.51Base Warrants Confirmation dated as of February 9, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.52Base Warrants Confirmation dated as of February 9, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)

Exhibit No.ExhibitMethod of Filing
10.53Additional Call Option Transaction Confirmation dated as of February 10, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG, London BranchIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.54Additional Call Option Transaction Confirmation dated as of February 10, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.55Additional Call Option Transaction Confirmation dated as of February 10, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.56Additional Warrants Confirmation dated as of February 10, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG, London BranchIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.57Additional Warrants Confirmation dated as of February 10, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.58Additional Warrants Confirmation dated as of February 10, 2015 between Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015 (File No. 001-35823)
10.59Amendment to the Base Warrant Confirmation dated as of November 24, 2015 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and Deutsche Bank AG, London BranchIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.60Amendment to the Base Warrant Confirmation dated as of November 24, 2015 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.61Amendment to the Base Warrant Confirmation dated as of November 24, 2015 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and Wells Fargo Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.62Amendment to the Additional Warrant Confirmation dated as of November 24, 2015 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and Deutsche Bank AG, London BranchIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.63Amendment to the Additional Warrant Confirmation dated as of November 24, 2015 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.64Amendment to the Additional Warrant Confirmation dated as of November 24, 2015 between Wright Medical Group N.V. and Wells Fargo Bank, National AssociationIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27, 2015 (File No. 001-35065)
10.65Form of Partial Termination Confirmation among Wright Medical Group N.V., Wright Medical Group, Inc. and each of JPMorgan ChaseIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K (with respect to Item 1.01) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)
10.66Agreement of Lease dated as of December 31, 2013 between RBM Cherry Road Partners and Wright Medical Technology, Inc.Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.94 to Wright Medical Group Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (File No. 001-35823)
10.67First Amendment to Agreement of Lease dated as of January 1, 2014 between RBM Cherry Road Partners and Wright Medical Technology, Inc.Filed herewith

Exhibit No.ExhibitMethod of Filing
10.68Second Amendment to Agreement of Lease dated as of January 1, 2014 between RBM Cherry Road Partners and Wright Medical Technology, Inc.Filed herewith
10.69Third Amendment to Agreement of Lease dated as of May 1, 2015 between RBM Cherry Road Partners and Wright Medical Technology, Inc.Filed herewith
10.70 Lease Agreement dated as of May 14, 2012 between Liberty Property Limited Partnership, as Landlord, and Tornier, Inc., as Tenant 

Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Tornier’sthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2012

(File No. 001-35065)


Exhibit No.

Exhibit

Method of Filing

10.20

Commercial Leases (Two), dated May 30, 2006, by and between Alain Tornier and Colette Tornier and Tornier SASIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.22 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2010 (Registration No. 333-167370)

10.21

Commercial Lease, dated December 29, 2007, by and between Animus SCI and Tornier SASIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2010 (Registration No. 333-167370)

10.22

Rider No. 1 to Commercial Lease dated August 18, 2012 between Animus SCI and

Tornier SAS

Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to Tornier’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2012 (File No. 001-35065)

10.23

Commercial Lease, dated February 6, 2008, by and between Balux SCI and Tornier SASIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.24 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2010 (Registration No. 333-167370)

10.24

Rider No. 1 to the Commercial Lease dated February 6, 2008 dated August 18, 2012 between Balux SCI and Tornier SASIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to Tornier’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2012 (File No. 001-35065)

10.25

Commercial Lease, dated September 3, 2008, by and between SCI Calyx and Tornier SASIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2010 (Registration No. 333-167370)

10.26

10.71
 Commercial Lease dated December 23, 2008 by and between Seamus Geaney and Tornier Orthopedics Ireland Limited Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.27 to Tornier’sthe Registrant’s Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2010 (Registration No. 333-167370)

10.27

10.72
 Securityholders’Commercial Supply Agreement dated July 18, 2006, byMarch 29, 2016 between BioMimetic Therapeutics, LLC and among the parties listed on Schedule I thereto, KCH Stockholm AB, Alain Tornier, Warburg Pincus (Bermuda) Private Equity IX, L.P.FUJIFILM Diosynth Biotechnologies U.S.A., TMG B.V. (predecessor to Tornier B.V.)Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.28 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2010 (Registration No. 333-167370)

10.28

Amendment No. 1 to the Securityholders’ Agreement, dated August 27, 2010, by and among the Securityholders on Schedule I thereto and Tornier B.V.Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.37 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2010 (Registration No. 333-167370)

10.29

By-Laws of SCI CalyxIncorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.36 to Tornier’s Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2010 (Registration No. 333-167370)


Exhibit No.

Exhibit

Method of Filing

10.30

Credit Agreement dated as of October 4, 2012 among Tornier N.V., Tornier, Inc., as Borrower, Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, SG Americas Securities, LLC, as Syndication Agent, BMO Capital Markets and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Co-Documentation Agents, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and SG Americas Securities, LLC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners, and the Other Lenders Party Thereto (1) Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Tornier’sthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4, 2012April 7, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)

10.31

10.73
 First Amendment,Settlement Agreement dated as of May 6, 2013, toNovember 1, 2016 between Wright Medical Technology, Inc. and the Credit Agreement by and among Tornier N.V., Tornier, Inc., the Guarantors identifiedCounsel Listed on the signature pages thereto, the Lenders party hereto and Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative AgentSignature Pages Thereto Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.210.1 to Tornier’sthe Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2013September 25, 2016 (File No. 001-35065)

12.1

 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges Filed herewith

21.1

 Subsidiaries of TornierWright Medical Group N.V. Filed herewith

23.1

 Consent of Ernst & YoungKPMG LLP, an Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Filed herewith

31.1

 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Filed herewith

31.2

 Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Filed herewith

32.1

 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Furnished herewith

32.2

Certification ofand Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Furnished herewith



Exhibit No.

 

Exhibit

 

Method of Filing

101

 The following materials from TornierWright Medical Group N.V.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, formatted in XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 29, 201325, 2016 and December 30, 2012,27, 2015, (ii) the Consolidated Statements of Operations for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, (iii) the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, (iv) the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, (v) Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 29, 2013,25, 2016, and (vi) Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Filed herewith

__________________________
*All exhibits and schedules to this agreement have been omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(2) of Regulation S-K. TornierThe Registrant will furnish the omitted exhibits and schedules to the SECSecurities and Exchange Commission upon request by the SEC.Securities and Exchange Commission.

**A management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.


(1)Portions of this exhibit have been redacted and are subject to an order granting confidential treatment under Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (File No. 001-35065, CF #33696). The redacted material was filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Note:Certain instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt securities of the Registrant or its subsidiaries are omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K. The Registrant hereby undertakes to furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, copies of any such instruments.


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Shareholders

Wright Medical Group N.V.:
Under date of February 23, 2017, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of Wright Medical Group N.V. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 25, 2016 and December 27, 2015, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, cash flows, and changes in shareholders’ equity for the years ended December 25, 2016, December 27, 2015 and December 31, 2014, which are included in the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 25, 2016. In connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also audited the related financial statement schedule listed in Item 15 in the annual report on Form 10-K. The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.


(signed) KPMG LLP

Memphis, Tennessee
February 23, 2017

Wright Medical Group N.V.
Schedule II-Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
(In thousands)

 
Balance at
Beginning of Period
 
Charged to Cost and
Expenses
 
Deductions
and Other
 
Balance at End of
Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts:       
For the period ended:       
December 25, 2016$1,189
 $3,475
 $(195) $4,469
December 27, 2015$930
 $(878) $1,137
 $1,189
December 31, 2014$272
 $(684) $1,342
 $930

S-1